Citation

## Material Information

Title:
The cigar industry of Tampa, Florida
Creator:
Campbell, Archer Stuart, 1899-
McLendon, William Porter ( joint author )
University of Florida -- Bureau of Economic and Business Research
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville Fla.]
Publisher:
[s.n.]
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 p. l., x, 169 p. : incl. tables. ; 23 cm.

## Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cigar industry -- Florida -- Tampa ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction ( marcgt )

## Notes

Bibliography:
Bibliography: p. 93-94.
General Note:
This survey was made at the request of the Bureau of economics and business research of the University of Florida.--cf. Foreword.
General Note:
Reproduced from type-written copy.
Statement of Responsibility:
by A. Stuart Campbell...assisted by W. Porter McLendon...

## Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
025176817 ( ALEPH )
01862904 ( OCLC )
AHV5875 ( NOTIS )
41009309 ( LCCN )

## This item has the following downloads:

Full Text

The Gigar Industry

Of
Tampa, Florida

By
A. STUART CAMPBELL, Ph.D,
Director, Bureau of Economi
and Buinem Research
SUnivenity of Florida

Assiitd By
W. PORTER McLENDON, MA.,
University of Tampa

September, 1939

<'

S'

I

I1*
I,

~'If ~

The Cigar Industry

of
Tampa, Florida

By
A. STUART CAMPBELL, Ph.D.,
Director, Bureau of Economic
University of Florida

Assisted By
W. PORTER McLENDON, M.A.,
University of Tampa

September, 1939

Jf
' ^

FOREWORD

Since its establishment about ten years ago the Bures of Bco-
nomic and Business Research, of the University of Florida, been
interested in all of the industries in the state. It has de sur-
veys of several of the leading ones. It welcomed the opp ity
of investigating conditions in the cigar industry, one of old-
est in the state, now suffering from various maladjustmen
problems. The Tampa area, representing largely the Havana odupers,
has been most severely affected by these conditions. The try
in other cities of Florida, sudh as Jacksonville, Quinoe, tow,
etc., is mostly mechanized and has not had the same probi to deal
with.
The Bured" of Economic and Business Research was, the ore,
interested in the invitation issued by a group of Tampabu ess
men representing a special committee of the Tampa Chamber Com-
merce, to make an investigation of the cigar situation in
and elsewhere, with a view toward finding out what was wro with
the industry and what measures could be taken to correct t dif-
ficulties.
This committee was formed in the late spring of this *r by
President Sweeny of the Tampa Chamber of Commerce for the pose
of attempting to find solution for the problems confront the
cigar industry. The members were carefully chosen from am prom-
inent business and civic leaders of the city. None of the
connected with the cigar industry in any capacity. The me Oe of
the committee are: Nessrs. Carl D. Brorein, Chairman, D. McKay,
J. A. Griffin, E. P. Talliaferro, J. A. Sweeny, Ralph Nich on,
Ray B. Cralle, and P. J. Gannon.
After advising with both workers and manufacturers t com-
mittee concluded that an independent and impartial study o
facts and factors affecting present conditions would be of at
help to the industry. To this end the Bureau of Economic
Business Research of the University of Florida, was request to
make a fact-finding survey of the cigar industry in Tampa, ana-
lyze the facts,and include recommendations for the gobd of In-
dustry.
It is felt that this survey should be singularly help in
that it is entirely disinterested. The University has no a section
with this industry and its sole objective is.to render what d it
can to an important Florida activity. Likewise none of the m-
bers of the staff making the survey are connected in any wa ith
the cigar industry, or have any interest in it, outside of pres-
ent work.
From beginning to end the survey was made in a strictly par-
tial and fair manner. All the facts available were gather om
reliable sources, and checked and rechecked for accuracy. is
realized that some of the facts presented deal frankly with stoms
in the industry and with characteristics of individuals com sing
its various groups. This was not done to embarrass anyone, t to
point out that there is a direct and important connection n
these customs and characteristics and certain problems of t in-
dustry. In fact, it is only by changing some of the custom
practices that the problems can be solved.
In the survey the office and plant records of all the a-
nies comprising the Tampa Cigar Manufacturers' Association in-
spected carefully. The nineteen companies in the Associatio : A,
Santaella and Co. Perfecto Garcia and Bro., Oradiaz-Annsa Co.,
Garcia and Vega, Regensburg and Sons, Corral, Wodiska
Cuesta Rey and 6o., Morgan Cigar Co., Jose Arango and Co., el-
ino Perez and Co., La Integredad Cigar Co., Berriman Bros. .,
Salvador Rodriguez and Co., Arango and Arango, Lopez, Alvar
SCo., Preferred Havana Tobacco Co., J. W. Roberts andiSbh, VI son
and Co., M. Bustillo and Co. '
All of these companies were most helpful in i te' work,
available their complete records for inspection. The exami on

i'y

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

included the operations of each year as far back as 1925. In most
of the plants the records were complete, but in a few some data per-
taining to past years had not been kept.
Besides collecting data from the plant records of the cigar
companies, much valuable information concerning the development and
problems of the industry was secured from a series of interviews.
These were with officials in each of the plants, with leaders and
members ,of the labor groups, with the attorneys for the manufactur-
ers and the labor unions, with the officials of the Cigar Manufac-
turers' Association,and with a number of the older citizens of
Tampa not connected with the industry, who are familiar with its
problems by reason of a close association with them over a period
of years. Various developments in the relations between the em-
ployers and workers in the industry were followed closely.
In order to compare the cigar industry in Tampa with that in
the nation, as well as to note certain national problems in the
entire industry, an inspection was made of cigar plants in other
sections of tre country, including the important producing areas of
New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. A representative of the
United States Department of Labor accompanied the director of the
survey on this trip. First-hand information *as secured in this way
concerning conditions in these plants, and excellent suggestions for
the operation of Tampa plants.
In the survey all published material pertaining to the cigar
industry that could be obtained was examined closely. Government
reports dealing with various phases of the industry were analyzed,
and use was made of their findings. Standard cigar and tobacco
publications were inspected. Reference sources were consulted
for general economic data bearing on Tampa's cigar problem.
.As there is a serious unemployment problem in Tympa, center-
ing around a large group of unemployed cigar workers, the survey
included an investigation of this and possible means for its allevi-
ation, as well as the business problems of the companies.
It is felt that the survey, while not exhaustive, covered
about all that could be investigated xn the time and with the fa-
cilities available and presents an authentic and fairly comprehen-
sive picture of the Tampa cigar industry. It is sincerely hoped
that efforts will be made to follow the recommendations given,
which have for their objective the correction of serious problems
in the industry. In fact it can be stated frankly -and without ex-
aggeration that, unless certain changes are made in the Tampa in-
dustry, it will not survive. It has been declining for some years,
and will continue to do so unless something is done to check the
decline. The way out is indicated in this Report. Refusal to
take some measures along these lines means eventual failure for
the industry. Some plants could survive longer than others, but
ultimately all would go, if present conditions are maintained.
The Report on the survey is divided into seven Parts, and a-
Appendix containing statistical tables. In Part I the problems
of the Tampa cigar industry are summed up, so that the reader can
grasp them immediately and realize just what the situation is.
Part II describes and explains cigar manufacturing processes,
without an understanding of which the nature of the problems and
proposed remedies could not be comprehended. Comparative costs
of different methods of manufacture used throughout the United
States are likewise given. Part II deals with the growth of the
cigar industry in the United States, and its problems. This is
given to facilitate an understanding of what are purely local
problems of the Tampa cigar industry, and what are encountered by
the entire industry. Part IV traces the development of the Tampa
industry from Its 'earliest beginnings to the present time and
shouldbe of interest to all Tampans, while Part V shows the im-
portance of the cigr' industry to the city. Part VI explains
the financial results of operations of the Tampa cigar plants
for each year back to 1925, when the industry was prosperous. It
is eloquent statistical testimony as to the necessity for improve-

FOREWORD

ment of conditions in Tampa. Part VII includes recommendations
for the cigar industry of Tampa, based on the study of conditions
in this city and elsewhere.
The first and last sections of this Report thus state the
problems in Tampa and offer solutions for them. The 1iervening
sections go into the situation fully.
In making the survey, 102 statistical tables were separed.
These present factual data concerning conditions and t ads in
the cigar industry in Tampa and the United States. Be ase of
the large number of these tables, it was considered ad able to
place them all in the Appendix, instead of the body of e Re-
port. The reader of the Report is requested to refer b the
Appendix for each table, when it is mentioned. The ta as are
numbered consecutively and can be located easily.
It is desired to acknowledge with thanks the coop4e tlon of
the Cigar Committee of the Tampa Chamber of Commerce, t other
citizens of Tampa supplying information, of the cigar fac-
turers and their representatives, of the workers and t r
representatives, of the United States Department of Lal and
other Federal departments and cigar-associations supply g pub-
lications, in the making of this survey. Thanks are 1 wise
made to the Tampa Chamber of Commerce, its able secret Mr.
G. D. Curtis and his accommodating office force, for su ying
office space and extending many courtesies to the staff urgingg
the survey.
Members of the staff making the survey include A. uart
Campbell, Ph.D., Director, (University of Florida), W. rter
McLendon, M.A., Assistant Director, (University of Tam ,
Harve Truskett, B.S. and Truman Hunter, B.S., graduate udent
assistants.

A. Stuart Ca ell

W. Porter Mct~ndon
September 1, 1939

PART I
PROBLEMS OF THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY Page

1 The Human Element in the Cigar Industry of Tampa ........ 1
2 The Cartabon................................ ............. 4
3 Lack of Modernization in the Tampa Plants.................. 5
4 Inadequate Advertising by the Tampa Cigar Companies...... 6
5 Union Control of Labor in the Tampa Cigar Plants......... 6
6 Surplus Cigar Workers in Tampa........................... 7
7 Differential Between Labor Rates for Shade Mold and
Havana Mold............................................ 7
8 Increased Employment of Women in the Tampa Cigar Plants.. 8
9 Custom of Free Smokers................................... 8
10O- .ality of Tobacco Used in the Tampa Cigar Plants......... 9
11- Decline in Cigar Consumption...................... ...... 10
12- Trend Toward Smoking Cheaper Cigars..................... 10
13- Competiti6n From Machine Plants.......................... 10
14- Competition From Plants Using the Competitive System ... 11
15- Necessity For Stabilizing Conditions in the Tampa Plants. 12

PART II
CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

1 Composition 'of a Cigar................................. 13
2 Preparation of Havana Tobacco in Cuba.................... 14
3 Sources of Domestic Tobacco Used in Florida Plants....... 16
4 Processing of Tobacco in the Tampa Plants.............. 17
5 Classification of Cigarmaking Processes........... ..... 18
6 Spanish Hand Process of Cigarmaking .................. 19
7 Hand Mold Process of Cigarmaking ....................... 20
8 Competitive Process of Cigarmaking ....................e 21
9 Bunching-Machine, Hand-Rolling Method.................- 22
10- Automatic *Machines............................. ........... 25
11- ComparatiVe Costs of Different Processes................ 24
12- Processes Used in the Tampa Cigar Industry.............. 28

PART III
GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

1 Summary of the Problems of the National Cigar Industry... 30
2 Development of the Cigar Industry in the United States... 51
3 Production and Consumption of Cigars in the United States 35
4 Foreign TradeTand Consumption of Tobacco Products........ 37
5 Comparison of ta; Cigar Industry with the Cigarette
Industry................................................. 57
6 Operating Costs and the Results of Operations............ 59

PART IV
DEVELOPMENT OF TFE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY

1 Early History in Key West................................ 43
2 Establishment and'Early Progress in Tampa ................ 43
3 Business Organization in the Industry.................... 45
4 Migration of Tampa Plants to Other Localities ............ 46
5 Evolution of Employer-Employee Relations................ 47
6 -Organization of Employers and Employees.................. 51
7 Recent Developments in Employer-Employee Relations....... 53
4

TABLE OF COINTETS

PART V
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY TO TAMPA; Page

1 Effect of the Cigar Industry on the Growth of Tampa. ,... 56
2 Importation of Tobaocco From Cuba...................... .57
S- Advantages of Tampa for Cigar Manufacturing.......... -58
4 Problem of Unemployment in the Cigar Industry of Ta4 *... 60

PART VI
OPERATING RESULTS OF TAMPA CIGAR PLANTS

1 Scope of the Investigatio......................... ... 63
2 The Cigar Industry of Florida. ...................... .. 64
3 The Cigar Industry of the Tampa District............i..... 66
4 Tampa Cigar Plants Production and Sales............ .. 68
5 Tampa Cigar Plants Financial Statements..o ........ .. 70
6 Tampa Cigar Plants Chief Costs of Production: Lab
Tobacco, Taxes ..... ................................ .. 78
7 Tampa Cigar Plants Other Costs.................... .. 74
8 Tampa Cigar Plants Employees and Wages........... .. 74
9 Tampa Cigar Plants Costs of Different Processes... .. 76

PART VII
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA ^

1 System of Manufacture ..... .................. .. .. 7
2 Technologioal Improvementsa....................... ..
3 Advertising and Selling Methods................... ..
4 Labor Relations................... .... ..........
5 Wage Rates..... ......................................* .. 8
6 Internal Economies in the Plants.................. .. 84
7 Plant Customs........................ ... ..... .. 86
8 Customs Appraisal of Tobacco.................r ... .. 87
9 Consolidation of Companies........................ 8e
10- Welfare Work........................... ............ 88
11- Surplus Cigar Workers................................ 89.
12- Unity and Cooperation............................ .. 91

-*

: J

APPENDIX
(Statistical Tables) Page

Table 1 Percentage of Long Filler and Short Filler Cigars
to Total Production in the United States,
1920-1938..................................... 95
Table 2 Production and Value of Domestic Cigar Tobacco by
Types in the United States, 1956, 1937.......... 96
table 3 Production and Value of Wrapper and Filler Tobacco
Grown in Florida, 1935-1937....... ............ 97
Table 4 Classification of Cigar Making Processes Used in
the United States, 1939......................... 98
Table 5 Comparatie Amount of Hand and Machine Production
of Cigars in the United States, 1937............ 98
Table 6 Approximate Amount of Labor Required to Make One
Thousand Five-Cent Cigars by Various Manufact-
uring Methods in the United States, 1956...... 99
Table 7 Annual Operating Costs for Bunching Machine, 1959. 100
Table 8 Costs of Cigar Manufacture by Four-Operator, Long
Filler Cigar Machine, 1958...................... 100
Table 9 Comparative Cost of Manufacture of a Five-Cent
Cigar by the Machine Process, Combination
Machine and Hand Process, and Hand Process in
the United States, 1956........................ 101
Table 10 Automatic Cigar Machines Used in Florida, Classi-
fied by Cities, 1939............................ 102
Table 11 Labor Wage Rates for Cigarmaking, Used with the
Competitive System in Cigar Factories in New
Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, 1939......... 102
Table 12 Comparison of Labor Costs and Earnings of Cigar-
makers Under the Spanish Hand, Hand Mold, and
Competitive Systems of Cigar Manufacture with
a Ten- Cent Cigar, 1939......................... 105
Table 15 Distribution of Cigar. Machines in the Leading
Cigar Producing States, 1958.................... 105
Table 14 Average Hourly Returns to Hand Cigarmakers and
Machine Operators in Different Factories, 1938.. 104
Table 15 Number of Cigar Manufacturers in the United States
1910-1957...................................... 104
Table 16 Number of Cigar Factories with Classified Output
in the United States, 1921-1937................. 105
Table 17 Production of Cigars For Consumption in the
United States, 1863-1938....................... 106
Table 18 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars For Consumption by
Classes in the United States, 1920-1938........ 107
Table 19 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars For Consumption by
Classes in th6 United States, 1920-1938. Per-
centage of Classes to Annual Total............... 108
Table 20 Seasonal Indices of Consumption of Cigars in the
United States,190190938........................ 108
Table 21 Number of Concerns Manufacturing Cigars Exclusive-
ly, by Principal States, 1929-1937.............. 109
Table 22 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Large and Small Cigars Eor
Consumption in Specific Leading States, 1920,
1925, 1930-1957................................ 110
Table 23 Percentage of Total Withdrawals of Large Cigars
Fot Consumption in Leading States, 1920, 1925,
1930-1957...................................... 1l
Table 24 Average Retail Prices of Cigars in 32 Cities,
Specified Months, 1920-1938..................... 112
Table 25 United States Imports and Receipts of Tobacco
Products, From Noncontiguous Territories, By
Products and Countries,' Fiscal Years, 1912-1937. 113
Table 26 United States Exports and Shipments of Tobacco
Products to Noncontiguous Territories, 1909-1937 114

Page
Table 27 Estimated Consumption of Cigars and Cigarettes
Europe 20 Countries, 1920-195.............. 115
Table 28 Per Capita Consumption of Cigars and Cigarettes Y
European Countries, Compared With The United
States 1932............. ................... 115
Table 29 Per Capita Consumption of Cigars and Cigarettes 11
the United States, 1900-1938 ..... ......... 116
Table 30 Value of the Products of the Cigar and Cigarettj.
Industries, and Their Percentage of the Value ,
Total Tobacco Products in the United States, .
1909-1937. ........ ........ ....... ....... 117
Table 31 Number of Wage Earners in the Tobacco Products
Group in the United States, 1919-1937......... 117
Table 32 Average Weekly Hours Worked in the Tobacco Pro-
ducts Industries of the United States, 1919-196 118
Table 33 Expenditures For Cigar Advertising of Leading
Cigar Companies in Various Channels, 1938..... 119
Table 34 Expenditures for Cigarette Advertising by Four
Leading Cigarette Manufacturers, 1938........ 119
Table 35 Wages, Material Costs, and Value of Products in
the Cigar Industries in the United States,
1859-1937................................... 120
Table 36 Cost of Materials and Labor Compared with Total
Value of Product Cigar Industry in the United
States, 1929-1937. ........................... 121
Table 37 Average Weekly Wages Per Worker in the Cigar In-'
dustry in the United States, Florida New Jera$Pennsylvania, and New York, 1927-193'7 ..... 121 Table 38 Summary Indices For the Cigar Industry in the 1 United States, 1919-1936.................. 122 Table 39 Internal Revenue Receipts From Tobacco Products the United States, Fiscal Years, 1913-1938 ..# 123 Table 40 Internal Revenue Receipts From Cigara, By States1 and Territories, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 19l 124 Table 41 Percentage of Net Earnings to Net Worth, of Leading Cigar Manufacturing Companies in the United States, 1927-1938...................... 125 Table 42 Earnings Per Share on Common Stock For Leading Cigar Manufacturing Companies in the United States 1922-1938.............................. 126 Table 43 Pioneer 6igar Firms of Tampa, 1886-1905.......... 127 Table 44 Major Cigar Factories Closed in Tampa Through Removal to a New Location, Consolidation or Dissolution, 1928-1939......................... 128 Table 45 Cigars Produced in Tampa, Population Census of Tampa, 1900-1939................ .............. 129 Table 46 Quantity of Cuban Tobacco Imported by the United States, Quantity of Havana Tobacco Imported Through Tampa, Per cent of Total Havana Tobacco1 Imported Through Tampa, Total Value and Averag*.' Value Per Pound of Tobacco Entering the Port of Tampa, Florida, Calendar Years, 1929-1939 ...... 130 Table 47 Tobacco Imported Through the Port of Tampa, Florida, 19W9-1938.......................... 131 Table 48 General Rates of Import Duties on Unmanufactured' Tobacco 1883.-1939....................... .., 132 Table 49 Import Duties on Unmanufactured Tobacco From Cub4 I 1883-1939. ......... .......................... 132 Table 50 Band Cigar Plants of Tampa (19), embers of Tamp Cigar Manufacturers' Association, (Classlflcat According to Type of Tobacco Used), July 1, l9 133 Table 51 Establishments Producing Cigars, Cigarettes and Other Manufactured Tobacco in Florida, 1915-19 134 Table 52 Location of Cigar Establishments in Florida, July 1, 1939.................................. 134 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA Page Table 53 Statistics for the Cigar Industry of Florida, (Larger Establishments), 1890-1937.............. 135 Table 54 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars For Consumption By Classes in Florida District, 1920-1938.......... 136 STable 55 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars For Consumption By Classes Percentage of Total Made up of Each Class, Florida Distric.t, 1920-1938.............. 137 Table 56 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars For Consumption By Classes Tampa District, 1920-1938............. 138 Table 57 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars For Consumption By Classes, Percent of Classes to AnnUal Total, Tampa District, 1920-1938...................... 139 Table 58 Comparison of Cigars Sold By Plants in the Tampa District, With Sales By Plants in Florida, and Cigars Manufactured in the United States, 1920-1938 ..................................... 140 Table 59 Estimated Payroll of the Cigar Industry in the Tampa Area, 1926-1938.................,....... 141 Table 60 Number of Employees in Tampa Cigar Factories Including Machine Factories, Separated as to Men and Women, 1930 and 1939........................ 141 Table 61 Classification of Tampa Cigar Plants According to Capitalization, Sales, Output, and Employees, 19 Tampa Plants, 1938.......................... 142 Table 62 Index of Sales of Cigars, By 19 Tampa Companies, 1926-1938................... ..................... 142 Table 63 Tax-Paid Withdrawals of Cigars For Consumption By Classes, 19 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938......... 143 Table 64 Percentage of Tax-Paid Withdrawals of Cigars For Consumption By Classes, 19 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938........................................ 143 Table 65 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars By Classes of 19 Tampa Factories, First Six Months, 1939.......... 143 Table 66 Withdrawals of Cigars For Consumption By Classes From Clear Havana Factories of Tampa, 6 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938............................ 144 Table 67 Withdrawals of Cigars For Consumptionby Classes, From Clear Havana and Shade Factories of Tampa, 8 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938 ................... 145 Table 68 Withdrawals of Cigars For Consumption By Classes, From Shade Cigar Factories of Tampa, 5 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938............................ 146 Table 69 Percentage of Total Withdrawals of Cigars For Consumption By Classes, From Clear Havana Fac- tories of Tampa, 6 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938... .147 Table 70 Percentage of Total Withdrawals of Cigars For Consumption By Classes, From Clear Havana and Shade Factories of Tampa, 8 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938............................ .... ..... 147 Table 71 Percentage of Total Withdrawals of Cigars By Classes, From Shade Factories of Tampa, 5 Tampa Factories, 1926-19388........................... 148 Table 72 Percentage By Classes of Total Withdrawals of Cigars for Consumption, From Three Groups of Tampa Cigar Plants Manufacturing Clear Havana, Havana and Shade and Shade, 1926-1938.......... 148 Table 73 Seasonal Index of Withdrawals of Cigars For SConsumption of 17 Companies in Tampa, 1938..... 149 Table 74 Variety of Brands By Classes of 19 Tampa Companies 1939............................................ 150 Table 75 Composite Balance Sheet, 18 Tampa Cigar Companies, 1926-1938 ...................................... 150 Table 76 Ratios of Balance Sheet Figures, 18 Tampa Cigar Companies, 1926-1938............................ 151 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table 77 Earnings on Invested Capital, 16 Tampa Companiesl 1926-1938..................................... 152 Table 78 Composite Profit and Loss Statement, 14 Tampa Companies, 1926-1938 ......................... 152 Table 79 Percentage of Net Sales of Cost of Sales, SelliA Expense, Administrative and General Expense,al Net Profit, 14 Tampa Companies, 1926-1958 ....,. 153 Table 80 Cost of Labor, Tobacco and Taxes, and Their Per--' centage of Cost of Sales, in 19 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1930-1938......................... 154 Table 81 Cost of Labor, Tobacco and Taxes Per M Cigars Manufactured, 19 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1930-1938....................................... 155 Table 82 Cost of Tobacco and Duties and Percentage of The* Total Cost, 19 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1930-1938 156 Table 83 Cost of Tobacco and Duties Per M Cigars Manufic- tured, 19 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1930-1938...... 157 Table 84 Percentage of Customs Duties, Internal Revenu, .a Other Taxes to Total Taxes, For 19 Tampa Cigar. Factories, 1930-1938.....................-. ...6 158 Table 85 Cost Per M Cigars Manufactured of Customs Duties, Internal Revenue, and Other Taxes, For 19 Tampa' Cigar Factories, 1930-1938........... .......... 159 Table 86 Internal Revenue Taxes on Cigars According to th:. Principal Internal Revenue Acts,-From 1909 to 1931.................................... ...... 160 Table 87 Tax Breakdown of a Typical Tampa Factory, Showinr Specific Taxes As Percentages of Cost of Sales,, 1933......................................... 161 Table 88 Tax Breakdown of a Typical Tampa Factory, Showing. Specific Taxes As Percentages of Cost of Sales,. 1938 .......................................... 161 Table 89 Cost of Supplies of 19 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1930-1938 ..................................... 162 Table 90 .ost of Cellophaning by Hand and Machine in a Typical Tampa Cigar Factory, 1930-1939......... 162 Table 91 Comparison of the Cost of Machine and Hand Cellophaning As Found in a Typical Tampa Fac- tory, 1939.................................... 163 Table 92 Expenditures For Advertising and Bad Debts, Show*.' As Percentages of Net Sales, 14 Tampa Factories, 1926-1938....................................... 163 Table 93 Estimated Cost of Free Smokers to Tampa Cigar Companies, 19 Tampa Companies, 1926-1938........ 164 Table 94 Number of Employees in 19 Tampa Factories, 1926-1939....................................... 165 Table 95 Distribution of Employees By Department and Sex in 19 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1939............. 165 Table 96 Average Weekly Wage and Hourly Earnings of Cigar- makers, 19 Tampa Factories, For Sample Weeks From Each Month, July, 1938 June, 1939....... 166 Table 97 The Wage Scale For the Spanish Hand System, Ef- feotive in the Tampa Factories, 1934 and 1939.., 166 Table 98 Average Weekly Wages of Workers Engaged in Dif- ferent Cigarmaking Processes and Operations, 19 Tampa Factories, Sample Weeks in Each Month, July, 1938 June, 1939.......................... 167 Table 99 Percentage Distribution of Cigarmakers and Cigars By Processes, in 19 Factories, Tampa, Florida, 1938-1939....................................... 167 ix x THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA Page Table 100 Labor Cost Per M Cigars of Different Cigarmaking Processes and Operations, 19 Tampa Cigar Fac- tories, Sample Weeks in Each Month, July, 1958 - June, 1939....................................... 167 Table 101 Productivity of Cigarmakers in Average Cigars Per Worker-Week, By Different Processes of Man- ufacturing, in 19 Tampa Factories, July, 1958 - June, 1939...................................... 168 Table 102 Average Number of Cigars Manufactured and Average , Wages For Cigarmakers and Other Factory Labor Per Hour, Per 8-Hour Day, and Per 40-Hour Week, By the Spanish Hand Method, Hand Mold Method, and Machine-Bunched, Hand-Rolled Method, in Selected Tampa Factories, Sample Weeks, 1938 - 1959........................................... 169 Pat I PROBLEMS OF THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY - This first section of the Report on the Survey of thbCigar Industry of Tampa will sum up the problems of this industry in Tampa. . It is considered advisable to present a brief picture of the industry's ills at the beginning of the Report so the reader can have these before him as he goes through the e de- tailed sections which follow. Figures and factual data sport- ing the conclusions of this section appear in subsequent rt of the Report. Persons interested in the Tampa situation, would be able to grasp its main features from this first sectioti A careful reading of the remainder of the Report will enabl -them to fill in the gaps, verify the conclusions, and have a g6euine understanding of the conditions under which the cigar ind* tries of Tampa and of the United States are operating. .1 1 The Human Element in the Cigar Industry of Tampa. In this Report all phases of the situation will be discussed frankly, as it is believed that a frank consideration of a the component parts of a problem is necessary for its solution, In past years almost all of the owners and workers iq he Tampa cigar plants have been Latins. At the present time 4out two-thirds of the owners and nine-tenths of the minor off lals and workers in the hand cigar plants of Tampa are of Latin x- traction, chiefly Spanish and Cuban, with a sprinkling of ,al- lans. This has had a decided effect on the cigar industry' ln Tampa. The Latin race has some fine qualities, such as a lo of artistry, of beauty and romance, and of a leisurely mode . living, interspersed with pleasure and gaiety. There are ame very commendable examples of the Latin type in Tampa. As' . class they are loyal in supporting their family members and friends, and are tenacious in their support of what they b4ieve to be a principle, or a right. The Latin method of business is formal, leisurely and in- hurried. Business is distinctly an avocation rather than avo-; cation with them. Above all they believe in the force of 4astom as applying to business, as well as to dress and to social, e- havior. After a business transaction has been handled in At. certain manner for a while, it establishes a precedent, anthat soon has the binding force of a natural law. In such a casi the parties Involved have the right to assume that the transaction will continue to be performed in exactly the same way, and:|f necessary to enforce compliance with the established mode.,l This point of view assumes a static, rather than a chag- ing business world. It does not allow for social, economic tor technological improvements, that go with progress. It ten(to tie the hands of industry, insofar as keeping abreast of tw times is concerned. The cigar industry of Tampa has felt the effect of thi tendency to adhere to the old way of doing things. The fose of custom is the most powerful force in the Tampa industry;- day. Some of the manufacturers have no desire to improve hods in their plants because they have always done things in th ald way. Other manufacturers desire to make changes, but are - hibited largely by the force of custom. Certain changes d red by this group would be opposed by the workers as interfere THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA with some of their cherished customs, and so, with a set-up and methods a generation old, the Tampa plants drift along, declining a little more each year. There was a time when the cigar plants of Tampa were very prosperous. This was before the general smoking public had turned largely to cigarettes and cheap cigars, and machine-made cigars had begun to capture a major portion Of the market. It was likewise before certain semi-machine devices for increasing productivity, ana efficiency methods of various kinds, had made their appearance in the plants of their chief competitors. In those prosperous days, Tampa-made clear Havata cigars were ' known throughout the country as a mark of quality, and their producers enjoyed large sales and big profit). To some extent these advantages were based on regional monopoly, as the cli- mate of Tampa was more suitable for the hand-production of Havana cigars than other centers. Under such advantageous con- ditions there was not much incentive or necessity for efficien- cy in the plants. Workers in the plants in those days received very high wages. Surplus workers here and there in the plant, slow ways of doing things, and waste of material, did not bother the management at such a time. Neither did such things as inadequate reserves, lack of sustained advertising and long-range selling programs. Tampa plant owners and officials lived in an Utopia which could not and did not last. With the advent of certain factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the returns be- came leaner, and the going more difficult. It was then that the failure to follow business-like methods of plant operation and careful management began to tell. Sales shrank and costs mounted. Competitors began to capture the market that formerly belonged to the Tampa clear Havana pro- ducers. It has been mentioned that the true Latin is an artist. This is borne out too well in the experience of the cigar manu- facturers of Tampa, who were concerned primarily with the making of a high quality cigar, and not sufficiently with the costs and returns from selling the cigar. Hence, the management of the plants was not as far-sighted as it should have been, the unsat- isfactory situation of today being caused in part by this lack of properly stressing the economic elements of the business. The Latin cigarmaker also considers himself more of an artist than a worker. This feeling has caused him to resent plant rules and restrictions and oppose measures which are a part of the standard discipline in American plants. He has been irked by minor plant regulations to the point of resisting them vigorously. He has a tendency to take things pertaining to his work or his art, as he thinks of it, very seriously, which frequently leads to his making a major issue out of a very triv- ial occurrence. Once an issue is before him he will fight des- perately for it, which helps explain some of the controversies between the workers and employers in the industry. Many of the employers for their part are just as stubborn about compromising an issue. There are some nationalities which are known to possess a trait of direct and open dealing. They will speak their minds frankly and openly, perhaps quarrel and get it over with, then settle the matter and forget it. The Latins are not like this. They will talk all around a point, hesitating to deal with it. Then, perhaps, they will ndt say what they think, but something else. It takes much time to get matters settled in this way, and sometimes they are never settled. Sometimes a real or fan- cied wrong which is never brought into the open becomes a matter for brooding over months or years, Increasing in magnitude and seriousness as time goes on. A settlement of the matter in the beginning, even if it takes a quarrel to do it, would seem to be much better. PROBLEMS OF THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY The &Ltin manufacturers and the Latin workers are in arguing about something a good part of each year. grievances that should be settled immediately in the sh before a joint labor board composed of manufacturers men and then the talking starts. Trivial matters are tied promptly by this board, but sometimes are discuss days. Hours andeven day have been consumed in argue the meaning of one word When negotiations started in for the renewal of the contract between the manufao workers, three weeks' discussion, with meetings every d was necessary before the pregM le to the contract was aeed In 1938, the o mittee or manufacturers and worker set to adjust labor difference held 867 meeting lasting 497 Does it seem stage that the cigar industry of Tampa Is - ging when so mok time is spent in talking and dia ee The large tfa#lies among the atins have had their eat on the cigar industry of Tampa. Plant owners have 'r sons, nephews and relatives into their business in official ca l- ties. In some instances these have proved capable office L in others, a burden on the business. Foremen have seleo many of their relatives for positions in the factories. some of them family groups have persisted. In some of the plants at various times foremen have * their authority. They have been known to require bribes dif- ferent kinds from the workers under them. Some have a e- quired the workers to patronize certain concessions. have occurred Qf morality in the factories, involving sanction or participation of the foremen and their fri Fortunately these instances are not common, and tend to dis- appearing. They are mentioned with the hope that the l a- tiges of them will be rooted out of the Tampa cigar Some of the Latin manufacturers have maintained a be- tween themselves and their workers. This may not have b in- tentional, but simply a result of their social custom. the same time it has resulted in a barrier between labor and ment in the plants, which has widened as time went on workers have resented this aloofness, and the relations the parties have suffered because of it. For instance, anu- facturers have never dealt directly with their workers matter, but always through their plant managers or fo Some direct dealings and personal contacts might help e e- ably. Both groups have interesting and human personality and individual contacts between them might enable them to a t their objectives are practically the same, successful p that will give a fair return to both owner and worker. Some of the cigar manufacturers of Tampa have failed co- operate with others. It is realized that most of them a m- petitors, but as manufacturers in the same center, they common interests and should support each other in matte volv- ing. managerial problems. For instance, each manufact be free to use the method of manufacture in his plant considers best. Yet, some of the Tampa manufacturers ha aled to support others in this right. At times they have eve joyed seeing their fellow-maafacturers beset by plant troubles var- ious kinds, and have not been very ready to qome to thel 4 The cigar manufacturers of Tampa are united in nme in ampa Cigar Manufacturers' Association, but they should be unit in fact and present a common front to problem in the indus This would help a great deal in the promotion of prosper for their individual plants and the oigar industry of Tampa. The. igar workers of Tampa have had a hard time in t years, and this has made them bitter. They have seen the wages drop to an average of$13.86 per week, due to the slump
industry and the spreading of work so that more workers a
be employed. This practice, which will be treated'later, s
agreeable with the workers, and yet it meant that each o
ceived leas than he would if employed full time. It has wise

"

4 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

been a burden on the employer, in added overhead costs.
The high scale of rates for hand-made cigars which the Tampa
workers have always received is a matter of pride with them. It
recalls past years when not only rates were high,'but earnings
likewise. Then they earned high wages and were proud of their
occupation. Now the high rates in Tampa are hurting the indus-
try in this district by making the labor costs higher than in
competing areas. The workers have unduly stressed wage rate
rather than total earin s. If they could forget the o3 ra e
scale, and think ofincreased productivity and higher earnings
with the use of. faster methods and a lower scale, they and the
industry might be much better off.
A large number of the cigar workers in Tampa do not grasp
the present situation in the industry. Either from indiffer-'
ence, or inability to get the facts, they cannot understand it.
They rely largely on their union leaders for information. It
is believed that a good many of these workers would cooperate
in efforts to help the industry, if they realized its present
need, and understood what would help it.
Some of the Tampa cigar workers have acted as though their
reduced wage was directly attributable to the manufacturers,
which is very unfair. The manufacturers have some faults and
have made some mistakes, but in recent years they have been
paying all the wages the industry could stands Instead of
quarreling any longer about the matter, the two sides should
cooperate to the fullest extent in all matters pertaining to
the operation of the plants, and see if their joint efforts
could bring prosperity to the industry. The workers should
help, rather than hinder, all efforts of the manufacturers to
modernize their plants and install economies. When this is
done in a whole-hearted, cooperative manner, the cigar industry
of Tampa will no longer remain in a slump, but will compete
successfully with the outstanding plants in the country.
It was stated at the beginning of this section that about
two-thirds of the present owners of hand cigar plants in Tampa
are, Latin. Of the remainder, one-half are Jewish and one-half
old-line American. The Jewish owners are good plant operators
and excellent business men. They do not possess the artistry
of the Latins in making cigars, but have a shrewd talent for
Economies and a sound judgment for sales outlets. Many of the
cigar companies of the country have a combination of Latin
management in the plant and Jewish supervision over sales.
The old-line, American plant owners are fairly good business
men, but are drifting along with the tide of the Tampa industry,
hoping for better days.

2 The Cartabon

An example of adherence to old practices in the Tampa
cigar industry is the present use of the "Cartabon." This is
a detailed list of labor rates of approximately 200 different
sizes and shapes of cigars, and the principal salaried posi-
tions in the plants, .which was drawn up about 1910. While there
has been what amounted to a blanket decrease and subsequent in-
crease in this entire rate scale, there has been no individual
change of the rates since 1910. Is there any other industry in
the United States which maintains a set scale'of labor rates,
fixed in 1910? The Cartabon was originally drawn up to prevent
labor rate-cutting in the Tampa cigar industry, being of some
protection to both employers and workers. It now appears to
be retarding the industry by being too archaic and inelastic.
It is clogged by sizes and shapes of cigars which have not been
made in years and will probably never be made again. Styles
in cigars have changed since 1910 as they have in other products,
but a set of wooden models of each size and shape listed in the
Cartabon, which was made when this was drawn up, is still kept

PROBLEMS OF TBE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY 5

by the Tampa industry. New sizes can be introduced in Car-
tabon, after a series of conferences between manufa t and
workers, but a new alse takes the rate of the next hih in-
stead of an intermediate rate. This usually means a trial
increase in the labor rate for the new size, and anufa
report many instances 'of having to refuse new order b se of
the inability of having the new size made at a rate whi would
allow them to compete with other producing areas. They lain
of the difficulty of introducing new sizes under the C on,
and state they are losing ground to competitors who can
styles to correspond with market changes at no additoi labor
cost. The present sales price of cigars is not a bsioe tor
in the Cartabon rates, nor is it even considered a-- .
The predominating factor is force of custom. This e in
the rate situation has greatly retarded the developia t the
Tampa cigar industry.

3 Lack of Modernisation in the Tampa Plants.
The Tampa cigar plants, with the exception of the taipa
Cigar Company, are not as efficient as they might be. is
partly the fault of the management, in not keeping a of
the times and installing economies, and partly the fault the
labor in the plants-in not being willing to change some the
old customs of the industry in favor of newer, better
The hand cigar plants of Tampa appear to be opera the
same maner as they were twenty, thirty or fifty years M. while
some additions have been ade to the equipment in some -the
plants, such as bunching machines, stripping machines o- -
phaning and banding machines, etc., the work in the pa
carried on in the same old way. The storage and ageing
the tobacco, its casing, blending, and stripping, have i -
gone little change. The method of distributing mteria the
workmen, collecting the cigars, inspecting them, and pi
and packing them, is almost identical with that used f yeaN
ago. A force of foremen, selectors, clerks, strippers,
packers, etc., is maintained according to a predetecd-
ule rather than the need for them. Years ago a ratio wa rked
out showing the number of these various workers that ea lant
must employ, according to its production of the diffe des
of cigars. That schedule is fixed and unchanging today.
need for the services of some of these workers seems to sec-
ondary. They are there by custom and by agreement bete manu-
facturers and workers, and they remain.
Some of the manufacturers do not want any changes i eir
plants or in the industry, and are partly to blame for t de-
cline of cigar manufacturing in Tampa. Other manufactu are
progressive and would like to change some of the old met ,
but they are confronted by a force of tradition so at t
they have been unable to make any headway against it, a
were (done in the cigar industry of Tampa in certain ways any
length of time they took on the status of customs, and o
given this classification, nothing short of a revolution d
change, them. To aggravate an unsatisfactory situation, of
these old customs have been ratified by agreement be -
facturers and workers..
The workers in the industry attach great importance the
way the work has been carried on in the past in the plan and
are quick to resent any innovation or change. They have
obstinate struggles to preserve the old methods, and ha c-
ceeded in incorporating some of them in agreements. In a
involving the simplification of processes in the plants that
a smaller number of workmen could do them, the workers ada-
mant. They would fight desperately rather than permit th lim-
ination of a few surplus workers in the plants.

6 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

4 Inadequate Ad rising by the Tampa Cigar Companies.
Some years ago Tampa-made Havana cigars did not need adver-
tising, They were known throughout the country by smokers of
fine cigars. They were constantly in demand, and every dealer
stocked them. Tampa manufacturers simply filled the orders with
quality cigars as they came in.
The situation has been different in recent years. Cigar
consumption has undergone a serious decline. Cigar companies
in otaer parts of the United States have entered the field and
the competition has grown intense. These other companies are
not depending upon tradition to sell their cigars, but have
energetic salesmen and effective advertising..
The present cigar smoker is not very muoh interested in
Tampa-made cigars, unless they are called to 6Is attention in
some effective way. Some of the older men still call for Tampa
cigars, but they are dying out. When they are all gone the
Tampa industry will die likewise, unless the Oew generation ok
smokers can be persuaded to smoke Tampa cigars.
Advertising is a big need of the Tampa cigar industry and
serious attention should be given it. The cigar manufacturers
of Tampa realize this, but in recent years they have not had
sufficient funds for much advertising. With their companies,
showing operating results very close to the line between a
gain and a loss, or actually suffering a loss, the funds have
not been available for such a purpose.
The manufacturers are hopeful of improving their operat-
ing condition by modernization of some of their processes. If
they succeed in doing this they should be able to set aside an
appropriation for effective advertising.

5 Union Control of Labor in the Tampa Cigar Plants.
The labor in the cigar plants of Tampa has been unionized
locally ever since the plants began to operate. The local un-
ions have had national affiliations, which at certain periods
have been closer than at others. They are member unions of the
International Cigarmakers' Union of America, Inc., which is a
part of the American Federation of Labor.
There are seven local unions, the division being on a craft
basis according to the type of work in the plants, with some con-
sideration being given to nationality. A board chosen from the
membership of the local unions handles the relations with the
manufacturers, the national union and the public.
The relations between the cigar unions and the manufactur-
ers of Tampa have not been very harmonious. they have been,
marked by distrust and a lack of frank dealing There has been
a sort of running quarrel between them ever since the beginning
of the industry. This has broken into the open on several oc-
casions. Bad strikes have occurred in the Tampa cigar industry
in 1900, 1910, and 1920. There'has been no serious strike in
recent years.
Several years ago the Tampa manufacturerO agreed to what
was virtually a closed shop for union labor is their plants, in
return for a promise from the national cigar fnion that there
would be order and harmony and cooperation from labor in the
plants. This condition did not materialize'as expected and the
manufacturers feel that they did not get that, to which they were
entitled.
Recent negotiations between the parties have been charac-
terized by a somewhat better feeling. The willingness of the
unions to acknowledge in their.contract the right of the manu-
facturers to modernize their plants along lines followed success-
fully by their competitors is a very encouraging sign.
The attitude of the mass of workers in the Tampa Cigar
industry is puzzling. Some of them seem to hbve a blind faith

PROBLEMS OF THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY

in their union, without knowing what the situation is o
is being done about it. Other are not interested in t
ion, and rather resent having to pay their union dues
month. The mas of the Tampa cigar workers know very 1
about the problems of the industry. It is felt that if
knew more about these problem, they would be willing t
the mamnfacturers solve thea.
6 Surplus Cigaw Worers in Tampa.
A problem, partly industrial and partly civic, con
the surplus mber of oigar workers in Tampa. For a
of years the Uanpa industry has been on the decline
furnished Jobs for fewer cigar workers each year he
number of unemployed would be even larger but for the p
twice of staggering work in the plants, or spreading the
among a larger number of workers than is necessary.
concerning the extent of unemployment in the Tampa ciga
plants are given in Part V.
Under present conditions fte Tampa cigar plants o
employ more workers. If they modernize their plants wi
the full cooperation of their labor and introduce effect
advertising and salesmenship, there is a good poslibili
an expanded production, with more Jobs. It is not belie
that the cigar plants can give employment to all the
cigar workers of Tampa for many years to come, even with
,prosperity in the industry.
This situation is partly a civic problem of the
community. The cigar companies have a responsibility f
the employment of as many as they reasonably can. The
civic authorities should give some attention to the
der. Suggestions that might help with this problem are
later in the Report. A complication that exists in the
action ia that mse of the older unemployed cigar workers
perhaps a majority, are not fitted by training, physique
temperament for poSitions in many other industries. A f
able aspect of the situation is that very few apprentice
are being trained in agarmaking most of the Latin
and girls going into other fields. This indicates that
problem should grow less serious as time goes oQ

7 Differential Beteen Labor Rates for Shade Mold and
vana Mold.
There are many thint n the Tampa cigar situation,
other than those mentio d, that need correction. All ol
these cannot be treated in this section, but several of
will be, mntioaed.
The labor rates paid by the T qm cigar industry f
making of cigars by the mold prooeee are in need of ad
ment. In this process, two types of tobacco may be used
the wraper, the Havana wrapper or tb dometic wrapper,
called as de" wrapper because it me grown under arti
cial sbluade, editions. The labor rate for the Havana mo
cigars tdsmaiderably higher than the rate for the shad
mold, whepO there is but little difference in the
of diffieuQ;At countered in making them. The low rate
shade mold wa fixed shortly after 1910 and was for the
pose of discouraging the use of the mold. It did not do
as manufacturers and workers both liked it on account of
increased proIp otivity over the hand process. Shade
turers had lower costs, and workers had higher earnings
it. The mold process has been satisfactory for the shade
manufactuierp but the sam advantages should be extended
the Havana mold manufacturers by lowering this different.
to a very small amount.

r
i

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

8 Increased Employment of Women in Tampa Cigar Plants.

The increased employment of women in the'cigar plants
of Tampa represents a problem, inasmuch as the average male
worker has a family to support, and the average female work-
er does not. Since 1950 the proportion of woken employed in
the cigar plants of Tampa has increased rapidly. Figures
showing this increase are given in Part V. Most of'the new
women-workers coming into the plants are employed in the ol-
garmaking process, rather than other occupations in the plant,
a few being put on cellophaning and banding Achines, wheh
these are installed. Most of the workers engaged in the oi-
garmaking process in both machine and hand pints in north-
ern cigar factories are women.
Frankly, the male cigar workers of Tampa are partly to
blame for this trend toward the increased employment of wo-
men in the Tampa hand plants. The manufacturers have found
it more difficult to get along with the male workers, col-
lectively and individually,than with the female workers, and
welcome the opportunity of increasing the number of the lat-
ter in their plants. The women in the cigar plants usually
learn quickly and make satisfied, satisfactory employees.
Another reason for the preference by the' manufacturers
for women workers is that they do not smoke in the plant, or
take home free cigars each day. This results in a consider-
able saving over a period of time.

9 Custom of Free Smokers.

One of the old customs in the cigar industry of Tampa
that is pleasant for the workers, but expensive for the em-
ployers is that of permitting the unrestricted smoking of
cigars (made with the plant's tobacco) by the male workers,
and in addition giving each male worker three free cigars
each day at the close of work.
This custom started in the early days of the cigar in-
dustry in Tampa, when conditions in the plants were very in-
formal, the workers coming in when they chose and leaving
when they chose, being regarded more as artists than factory
workers. The treating of the force to cigars each day by
the owner of the plant was somewhat similar to the host at
a civic or social function passing refreshments to the guests.
It was distinctly a social custom rather than a business cus-
tom.
In the prosperous days of the Tampa cigar industry, when
many businesses were loosely operated, competition was slight,
and profits and wages were high, the practice of free smokers
did not work a particular hardship on the industry. There
was plenty to go around, and treating the workers to the com-
pany's product did not worry anyone.
However, conditions have changed entirely in the cigar,
industry. Competition Is now very keen, and Improved methods
and efficiency have been put into the successful plants.
Cost accountants make careful cheeks of plants and point out
where a little can be saved here and there. Those plants not
stopping the leaks are falling behind in the competitive race.
It is a case of the survival of the most effitent. Under
such conditions if one group of plants has an expense the
other plants do not have this group vill be greatly handi-
capped. The northern cigar companies do not permit smoking
in their plants by the workers, nor do they .Lve away three
cigars daily to each male worker. Most of tfem sell one or
more boxes of cigars at factory cost to their workers once a
week. This is in keeping with the practice f; many American
industrial plants to sell a limited amount of their product
to their employees at cost. No instances are known of Amer-

PROLENS OF THS TAMPA CIGAR IDUSTTRY 9

ican plants which permit unrestricted consumption of th prod-
uct by the workers during working hours, and in additi give
them a stated amount of the product each day.
A computation showing the estimated coat of smoker the
Tampa cigar plants is given in Part VI.
10 Quality of Tobacco Used in the Tampa Cigar Plants.
The cigar workers of Tampa feel that the cigar an tur-
era have resorted to a cheaper grade of tobacco in rece year.,
which has handicapped them in their work.
The cost of the tobacco used in the Tampa plants f each
year back to 1980 is shown in Part VI of the report, in les
80, 81, 82 and 83, These figures show that the total c of
the tobacco without duties used in the Tanpa plants has lined
since 1930, most of this decline occurring prior to 19 the
cost of tobacco since that year being about constant. ng
this period there was a reduction in cigar output, and ft
in production to the cheaper grades of cigars, which she be
taken into consideration. -The percentage of total cost pro--
duction comprised by tobacco declined but slightly in t rod.
Less is being spent for tobacco now by the Tampa p as than
in the period prior to the depression, but about as nmu in
the years following 1932. The reduction in output and d to-
ward lower price cigars would account partly for this r tion
in tobacco cost. Advantageous purchases in the market, re to-
bacco is. sold like other staple raw commodities, have b made by
some of the companies in recent years.
Reports concerning the conditions surrounding the o ution
of Havana tobacco in Cuba indicate that it has deteriora some-
what in quality in recent years, as a result of inadequa scien-
tific fertilization of the soil and adverse weather cnon ons.
Another problem confronting the'manufacturers is th thod
of appraising the imported tobacco for the purpose of as sing
duties. In the bales the wrapper and filler tobacco are d to-
gether, it being left to the judgment of the customs ins tor to
determine how much of the tobacco is of the wrapper gra As im-
ported wrapper tobacco takes a higher-duty than filler t ceor
this appraisal may make a considerable difference in the Fn of
the duties and the total cost of the tobacco.
A drastic provision in the tariff regulations provi that
if as much as 35 per cent of the tobacco in a bale is ap ised
as wrapper tobacco, the whole bale is assessed at 100 pe ent
wrapper duty. The power of making the appraisal rests e rely
with the customs inspector.
This illogical method of appraisal of tobacco has r ited
in placing too much power in the hands of the customs i tors.
A slight change in their Judgment might require the pay of a
high wrapper duty on an entire bale of tobacco, instead a low
filler duty on the bulk of it. Many instances of excess ap-
praisals have occurred.
A discussion of the conditions surrounding the impo tion
of tobacco from Cuba is contained in Part V of this repo Tables
46 and 47, show the quantity of Cuban tobacco imported in the
United States and at Tampa, the total value and value pe und,
and the division of the tobacco into the classes of wrap and
filler.
These figures show the assessed value per pound of im-
ported tobacco to have declined since the pre-depression iod,
but to have been about the same from 1931-1938. The pe age
of assessed wrapper to the total has increased from 1 pe aent to
3 per cent since 1929, indicating that Tampa cigar compa are
having more of their imported tobacco classified as wrap and
paying higher duties accordingly.
In the production of low-price cigars, some Tampa actur-
ers have unquestionably resorted to a poorer grade of to co. The

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

strong competition from producers in other areas with locker la-
bor costs, and the unsatisfactory condition of their business,
have almost forced this practice.

11- Decline in Cigar Consumption.

Among the problems confronting the entire cigar industry of
the United States, including the Tampa branch is the decline in
cigar consumption. Figures showing this decline for the United
States are given in Part III and for the Tampa area in Part VI.
The reasons for the decline of cigar consumption in the
United States are taken up in detail in these respective parts of
the Report. They center largely around the increasing and effec-
tive competition of cigarettes and the present fast mode of living.
The decline of cigar'consumption is thus .a national problem,
and not one peculiar to the Tampa companies, but its effects are
very serious for the Tampa industry.

12 Trend Toward Smoking Cheaper Cigars.

Another major problem of the cigar industry is the trend to-
ward the smoking of cheaper cigars. Figures illustrating this
trend.are given in Parts III and VI.
This trend toward the consumption of lower-priced cigars has
raised serious problems for the Tampa hand cigar industry. The
plants of Tampa were started and developed for the production,of
quality cigars. They were equipped to produce high-price cigars
made with the finest Havana tobacco, and expert hand labor. There
was a good margin of profit on these cigars, and when the smokers
of the nation purchased them in large quantities, the Tampa com-
panies prospered.
When the market demand for quality cigars declined, the Tampa
plants were left with an antiquated system of hand manufacture, en-
tirely unsuited for the low-grade production into which they were
forced. They.have been striving to produce these low-price cigars
with their old methods, in competition with companies making them
byr machine, and have found the struggle difficult. Their margin
of profit on these cheap cigars is very low.
Whereas formerly the Tampa hand plants produced the bulk of
their output.in quality cigars, and considered cheap cigars as
merely a by-product, now the by-product has become almost their
major product. The shade tobacco plants are more fortunate in
this respect than the clear Havana plants.
The shift from high grades to medium grades has also consti-
tuted a problem for the Tampa producers, as in these grades they
are faced with competition from plants in other areas using a
semi-mechanical system. This has speeded up their production and
enabled them to get ahead of the Tampa plants, which are still
following the old methods installed in their plants for a high
quality product.

13 Competition From Machine Plants.
The Tampa cigar plants have faced increasingly strong compe-
tition from producers in other areas having loer costs of produc-
tion. Some of these plants are mechanized and turn out low-price
cigars at amazingly low costs. Tampa manufacturers are finding it
difficult to compete with their hand-made cigars against machine-
made cigars in the low-price range. Some of them have attempted
to solve the problem by getting machines for their bunching oper-
ations, and having the rolling done by hand. The cost by this
method is still higher than the automatic machine cost. It looks
as though the Tampa manufacturers will have to come to the auto-
matic machine for all 5 cent short filler cigars.

PROBLEMS OF TEB TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY 1

14 Competition From Plants Using the Competitive Syst
While the Tampa manufacturers have faced strong c ition
in their 5 cent cigars from machine plants, they have fl a
different kind of competition for their higher grade ci As
Tampa is inherently a production center for high grade a,
this competition is more serious than the other.
The competition ia from plants in other sections of e coun-
try, notably the New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania area. this
area the progressive plants have improved on the old Sp hand
system by using a hand-propelled tool, called a Liebe Chine,
to help make the finished cigar. With. this Lieberman n some
plants use a mold, in which the bunch is pressed before
rolled, and some use a suction plate to facilitate the ing.
Another device frequently used with this method is a metal
object, called a thimble, which has a concave surface ed to
shape the head of the cigar. Various combinations of t aids
are used in conjunction with the Lieberman bunching mach .
The combination of the Lieberman bunching machine some
or all of the other devices has resulted in a decided i e m in
productivity. Workers using this system can make more c a than
with the mold system or the Spanish hand system. Altho the
wage rate is lower, this higher productivity enables th workers
to make larger earnings than with the other methods.
A group of Tampa manufacturers are desirous of putt ths
method, which is termed the "competitive system", into t plants,
with the same rate scales as are used in other producing as
They claim that with it they can lower their costs and a he same
time increase productivity so that the workers will earn e.
This has been done in the other centers, and they belie b can
do it.in Tampa. The workers disagree as to what is inol d in
the competitive system, and claim the manufacturers simp want
to use old devices and reduce wages. A greater fear of work-
ers is that the competitive system, by rdason'of its h pro-
ductivity, will reduce employment. The manufacturers a that
there would be fewer jobs for the same production, but o that
there would be more jobs in the long run, after the ben of
the higher productivity and lower costs were realized, work-
ers opposed the introduction of this system into Tampa a gor-
ously that no permanent use has been made of it.
Tampa cigar manufacturers feel that they cannot re in
business in this city much longer unless they are permit to
use this competitive system and reduce their costs to th
level as their competitors. They believe that with this tem
they can operate at a sufficient margin of profit to be e to
advertise adequately and improve their selling methods. a in
turn should lead to increased sales and prosperity for com-
panies, with more Jobs for workers when the results of system
begin to be realized. The workers object to the lower f the
wage rate and the reduction in employment that the int tion
of the system will entail. Where the competitive system sub-
stituted for hand-work there would be a reduction of 20- per ,r
cent in the number of workers engaged on the cigare aff d by
the process. The manufacturers claim that the system wo have
to be introduced gradually, as the workers need to be ed for
it. They believe that one or two years wouldd be necess to
complete its installation in the plants. This would mit te the
effect of the initial unemployment, and soon the decrees costs
should lead to increased sales, and the latter to expand pro-
duction and increased employment. When the competitive tea
was first being tried they offered to guarantee to the a
their average wages during the preceding year.
The workers state that they are not opposed to any sys-
tems which will help the industry and not injure their o inter-
ests. They have agreed to a clause in the new contract ch gives
the manufacturers the right to install new systems, upon written

1 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

notice to the unions, five days before so doing. The question of
wage rates to be paid under the new system will then be taken up,
and if not settled promptly, will be referred to the United State,
Department of Labor for adjudication. The labor leaders hope the
change to the new system will be made gradually, so as to dislo-
cate as few workers as possible, and that the business advantages
and production increase expected of it will be realized.
However, before the Tampa manufacturers can expect to get th
same productivity from the competitive system that the plants in
the northern area are getting, they will have to devote more'attei
tion to the preparation of their tobacco. This is done more care
fully and scientifically in the northern plants, and is in a betti
condition when it reaches the workers.
Manufacturers and workers alike will also havo to cooperate
in introducing efficiencies and economies in the Tampa plants if
these are to realize the full productivity of the competitive sys.
tem, and be able to compete successfully with companies using it.

15 Necessity for Stabilizing Conditions in the Tampa Plants.

The unstable conditions in the cigar plants in Tampa have
hurt the companies in several ways. Their salesmen have found soi
buyers reluctant to place orders for cigars in the Tampa plants
when labor troubles in them might delay or prevent the filling of
the orders. Then, buyers have hesitated to place orders for size
or shapes that were the subject of dispute between the manufacture
ers and workers. The companies have been unable to make plans fo:
selling cigars dependent upon certain processes, when their right
to use the processes might be challenged and taken away. Neither
could they plan an extended advertising campaign for cigars that
they might be unable to supply, when the time came for filling th,
orders.
Some manufacturers have desired to put in modern devices and
improvements, but the future of the cigar industry in Tampa has
appeared so uncertain that they have .hesitated to do so. It has
seemed to some that the inability to arrive at satisfactory work-
ing agreements with labor would fdrce them either to close their
plants, or to leave Tampa. Under such conditions plant owners art
not very likely to appropriate funds for new equipment.
Most of the cigar plants of Tampa have been unable to operate
successfully in recent years. This is due to a combination of th'
conditions mentioned in this section. Whatever its cause, the
fact stands out that they have not prospered. In 1938 the net
profit made by the nineteen Tampa hand plants was only 0.05 per
cent of their capitalization. The percentage of net profit to in.
vested capital of the Tampa plants has not exceeded 2.5 per cent
in the last six years. Very few industries in the United States
could operate very long with such a low rate of return. Also, the
majority of the plants are actually.losing money. In 1938 only
six plants out of the nineteen made any profits at all, the other
thirteen incurring losses. When two-thirds of the companies in
any industry are incurring deficits in their operations, something
is radically wrong with the industry. Complete figures showing
the results of operations of the Tampa plants are given in Part V:
These figures indicate the seriousness of the situation for
the hand cigar companies of Tampa. It is evident that conditions
must be changed if the factories are to continue in Tampa. The
management of the plants must be permitted and encouraged to
modernize them as completely as possible. They should likewise
devote their efforts to improved sales methods. Above all, the
cigar industry of Tampa needs stable relations and cooperation
betWeen its labor and capital.

12

Part II
CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

In order to enable the reader of this Report to stand
the problems confronting the Tampa cigar industry and thl national
cigar industry, an explanation of the processes involved cigar
manufacturing will be given. Inasmuch as some of the ma press-
ing problems of the Industry are concerned with product process-
es, it is felt that a knowledge of these is essential to asp the
significance of the industry's problems. This explanati will be
made for the layman rather than in a technical manner.
1 Composition of a Cigar. I

According to an official classification of the Unlti States
Internal Revenue Bureau, a cigar is a finished tobacco p duct,
produced for the purpose of smoking and wrapped with a to acco
covering. If the covering is of paper or any substance p her than
tobacco, the product is classed as a cigarette.
The cigar is composed of two parts, the body and th) outer
covering. The body of the cigar is called the "bunch". e to-
bacco comprising the body of the cigar is known as "fill The
outer covering may be a single leaf called a "wrapper", it may
consist of an inside covering known as a "binder", with wrap-
per over this.
Cigars may be classified as of two types, as far ae ontruo-
tion is concerned, long filler and short filler. In the ng
filler cigars the filler consists of tobacco leaves or p of
leaves as long as the cigar. These are placed together paral-
lel strips of filler equal in length to the cigar,and rolled
to form the bunch. The short filler cigars are made of ken or
chopped up tobacco. These broken leaves may be from wra re or
from a lower grade of tobacco unsuitable for wrappers. broken
leaves used for filler are sometimes known as scrap.
Higher price cigars are usually long filler. Howev some
short filler cigars made by hand are superior to some ma e-made
long filler cigars. The tobacco required for long fille s usu-
ally more expensive than that for short filler. In chea: igars
the filler is usually composed of a low grade of scrap t cco,
frequently out up by a machine. Some short filler, made Havana
tobacco, makes a good cigar, and some short filler which a blend
of Havana and domestic tobacco, gives a satisfactory
Table 1 shows the percentage of the total cigar pr tion
of the United States that was made up of long filler and ort
filler in each year in the period, 1920-1938. Prom this ble, it
is seen that at the present time long filler compries 7 er cent
and short filler 50 per cent of the total. In 1920 long 1ler
made up almost nine-tenths of all cigars produced. Sino 920 it
has declined to seven-tenths, while the proportion of sh filler
has increased in this period from about one-tenth to t tenths'.
The improvement of short filler machines, resulting in a tter
cigar and lower cost of operation, has been a major fact in in-
fluencing this trend. -
In the manufacture of cigars three types of leaf a ended,
wrapper, binder and filler. When the cigars are made by e Span-
ish hand process only the wrapper and filler are require as a
binder is not used. Tobacco for wrappers must be of a tex-
ture than that used for binders and filler. It must pos s cer-
tain qualities of color and texture, and be suitable for form
and satisfactory burning. It must likewise blend well the
other tobacco, or be neutral in taste. Certain domestic papers
which have been developed with a neutral taste, make goo overings
for Havana filled cigars. The wrapper has much to do wi the

13

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

saleability of the cigar. Because of the exacting requirements f
wrapper tobacco, as well as a higher cost of production, it bring
a higher price than either filler or binder.
In the manufacture of cigars, tobacco imported from Cuba,
known as Havana tobacco, may be used for both the wrapper and the
filler. Cigars made entirely of Havana tobacco are known as "Cle
Havana" cigars. These command the highest prices in the market.
A practice that is followed by many cigar manufacturers is
to use Havana filler in their cigars, together with domestic wrap
per and binder. A type of tobacco grown in Connecticut satisfies
the requirements of a good wrapper as regards color, texture and
burning qualities, and is widely used for covering Havana filler.
Another type of tobacco grown in Wisconsin makes an excellent
binder, and is frequently used in conjunction with the Connecticu
wrapper and Havana filler. Because this domestic tobacco is grow
under artificial shade conditions, it is known as "shade" tobacco
and cigars made with it are designated as shade cigars, and the
producers as shade manufacturers. Another type of wrapper used b
some American cigar manufacturers is imported from Sumatra. Vari.
ous blends of Havana tobacco and different kinds of domestic to-
bacco are used for filler by many manufacturers. Tobacco from
Puerto Rico and the Philippines is used to some extent, the lat-
ter in low grade cigars.
It is not possible to judge the quality of a cigar by passing
it under one's nose and smelling it. Cigars should be tested in
regard to five qualities* burn, aroma, taste or flavor, color, an
workmanship.
If a cigar does not burn freely, regardless of its other qua
cities, it is not a good one. By burn is meant the degree of com-
bustibility. If the cigar holds its fire several minutes without
being puffed, and the tobacco is consumed evenly on all sides and
shows no thick, black ring of carbon where the leaf meets the ash
the burn is good. If cigars do not burn freely, they were prob-
ably rolled too tight, and if they burn on one side more rapidly
than the other, it is generally due to faulty construction, such
as being rolled unevenly.
The aroma and flavor of cigars should be pleasing to the
smoker. As tastes differ in this respect, no standard can be
given.
The best color for a cigar is medium to dark brown. A green
or pale color may denote insufficient curing of the tobacco leaf
constituting the wrapper.
A good cigar is made smoothly and evenly, without lumps or
cracks. It should be firm or it will become spongy while being
smoked, but should not be too hard, or it will not draw freely.
Careful workmanship in laying the filler and putting.on the wrap-
per is necessary to secure the best results.
It is a misconception that dark-colored cigars are stronger
than light ones, as the color of the wrapper has very little af-
fect on the strength of the cigar. The filler comprises about
nine-tenths .of the cigar, so has a much greater effect on its
flavor. Improperly cured light colored wrappers may be stronger
than dark ones. A thick cigar is considerably stronger than a
thin one made with the same tobacco. Spots on tobacco are no in-
dication of its quality, as they might be caused by rain splashin
on the growing leaves, or occasionally by foreign elements in the
soil.
2 Preparation of Havana Tobacco in Cuba.

The sequence of steps involving the production of a clear
Havana cigar begins with the cultivation of the tobacco in Cuba.
Special districts in three Cuban provinces specialize in produc-
ing high grade tobacco leaf. These are: Partido district, in
La Habana Province; Vuelta Abajo district, in Pinar del Rio
Province; and Remedios district, in Santa Clara Province. Wrap-

CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

per leaf from the Vuelta Abajo district represents the f t ob-
tainable. La Habana cultivates a slightly less desirabl t
lighter leaf. A third district on the boundary line bet La
Habana and Pinar del Rio is known as Smi-Vuelta and its ot
is particularly useful for binder tobacco requirements f cer-
tain processes of Havana cigars. Most of the filler use
clear Havana manfacturers ocmes from.Partido or Vuelta jo dis-
tricts. The Santa Clara province grows a type of filler oh is
most adaptable in Havana blenl cigars for which domestic Sumatra
wrappers are used.
The annual crop of Cuban tobacco begins with the a of
seed around September 1st. Several plantings are usual ide in
a bed of finely pulverized soil. Approximately one mon after,
the young tobacco plants reach a height of about six in and
require transplanting. The plants attain a average heil o
three and one-half feet at maturity. Wrapper tobacco is
under artificial shade provided by specially woven cloth slate.
Filler and binder leaves are usually sun grown. The lat types
are darker and heavier than wrapper. The tobacco plante.
September let is ready for cutting about January lat. harvest
in January consists in cutting and drying mature leaves. to-
bacco leaves are gathered, strung by passing a needle read
through the head of the stems and left to dry from two t
weeks. The rapidity of this drying process depends to a ge
extent on the weather conditions. After drying, the to o is
placed in piles to sweat the leaves.
The next step is the field selecting stage. The to oo is
transported 'o field packing houses where skilled select sort
and grade it, according to length and texture. Leaves sepa-
rated into "hands containing from forty to seventy leave de-
pending on the grade, about fifty being the average. The d
of tobacco are then packed in bales protected by burlap the
bark of palm trees, the heads being placed out and the I as in-
side for protection. In the baling, four of these hands put
together, forming what is known as a "carat." Eighty of se
carats make up a bale, which thus contains about 16,000 coo
leaves. A bale of tobacco weighs about eighty pounds. this
stage in the operations, about mid-June, the Tampa manu ore
or their agents make their purchases.
If the manufacturers operate warehouses in Havana, tobacco
which cannot be used immediately or within several months stored.
During this time it is subjected to sweating. This is oulalty
common in the case of wrapper tobacco as the removal of as must
await delivery to the Tampa factory. Wrapper tobacco is stem-
med in Cuba. A different procedure is followed for fille ch
is frequently carried through the stemming or stripping tion
in Cuba. The costs of stripping in Cuba are lower than the United
States, but as the import duties on stemmed tobacco are o r than
on unstemmed tobacco, this tends to offset possible sav from
Cuban stripping.
Stripping of the filler tobacco starts by wetting t obacoo
leaves and allowing them to stand in a moistened condition ver-
night. Using a hand operation, workers remove from the es the
lower part of the stem. The machine process is little us in
Cuba but is widely applied for stripping domestic filler the
United States. Havana filler is stripped by hand in T After
the stripping is completed, filler tobacco is deposited barrels
and stored for a period of time while it is allowed to The
length of this ageing period varies with the type and co ion of
the tobacco, ranging from several months to several years
Cuban tobacco is usually shipped via Peninsular and iden-
tal steamers from Havana to port Tampa,Plorida. United St a cus-
toms inspectors at Tampa examine the incoming bales, a the
tobacco as wrapper, filler or scrap and assess the duties Bach
of these classifications requires a different tariff duty The
problem involved in the appraisal of the imported tobacco s been

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

mentioned, and will be taken up later in Part V of the Report.

3 Sources of Domestic Tobacco Used in Florida Plants.
Most of the hand cigar plants of Tampa use Havana tobacco In
ported from Cuba. While the clear Havana cigars are made entire
of Havana tobacco, the shade manufacturers of Tampa use a wrapper
grown in the United States with a Havana filler. The machine
plants in Florida use domestic wrappers, wi1h domestic filler or,
for their better cigars, a filler made of domestic tobacco blend-
ed with Havana tobacco.
An effort was made to raise Havana tobacco in Florida in 189
when some seed was planted near Fort Meade. One good crop result
from this planting, but no more. It appeared that the first crop
took essential chemical elements from the soil, which could not b
replaced.
The best type of domestic wrapper is grown in the Connecticu
valley. Havana seed is used in the production of this tobacco,
which is grown under shade conditions. These wrappers have an
attractive color and a very smooth and even texture, and make ex-
cellent cigar coverings. Their taste is neutral, so when filled
with Havana filler, the smoker gets the full effect of the Havana
tobacco. Some very high grade cigars are made with Connecticut
wrappers over Havana filler.
The shade plants of Tampa use Connecticut wrappers for their
cigars, in connection with Havana filler. The machine plants in
Florida likewise use Connecticut wrappers for the better grade of
cigars produced.
A type of wrapper is also grown in West Florida and South
Georgia under shade. This does not have the quality of the Con-
necticut wrapper,but is used on cheap cigars The machine plants
of Florida, in Jacksonville, Tampa, Quincy and other places, use
it to a great extent on their cigars below the 5 cent price range
In conjunction with the domestic wrappers, domestic binders
are used. The highest type of domestic binder comes from Wiscon-
sin. It is used by the Tampa shade producers and by the larg-
er machine plants in Florida. It makes an excellent combination
with a Connecticut wrapper and Havana filler for a good cigar.
Binder tobacco is also produced in Connecticut in consider-
able quantities but this is not as good as that produced ir Wis-
consin. A small quantity of binder tobacco is grown in Pennsyl-
vania and in middle western states, which is not equal in quality
to either the Wisconsin or the Connecticut binder. This is used
on low price cigars.
Most of the domestic filler tobacco is grown in Pennsylvania
The large northern machine plants use this extensively in their
operations. It results in a type of cigar quite different from
the Havana cigar, milder in taste, and appealing to some smokers,
but not to the Havana smokers. Domestic filler tobacco is grown
in Ohio and several other midwestern and middle Atlantic states.
It is likewise grown in the West Florida-South Georgia district.
Some of this last named filler is used in the Florida machine
plants, chiefly in Jacksonville and Quincy. Cigars made with
domestic filler are in the low price range, and do not compare
in quality with the Havana cigars.
Filler tobacco from Puerto Rico and the Philippines is used
by some American cigar plants. That from the.latter area is of a
lower grade than the domestic filler used. Cigar authorities hav
stated that the quality of American cigars is lowered by the use
of this type of filler. One of the larger Plorida machine plants
uses this for blending with domestic filler.
The complaint has been made by certain.northern cigar manu-
facturers that cigars made in the Philippines with the low grade
tobacco produced there and the cheap labor Of the Islands are
brought into the United States, duty-free, banded with American
cigar brands, and sold as American cigars. If this is true, this
unfair competition should be stopped.

CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

In Table 8 the domestic production of tobacco used p-
per, binder, and filler in cigar plants throughout the c
is shown, together with its average price per pound.
Table 3 shows the production and value of wrapper a miller
tobacco grown in Florida in recent years.
From these tables it can be seen that in 1937 Flori ro-
duced 21 per oent of the domestic wrapper tobacco produce the
United States, having an average value of *.75 per pound, com-
pared with an average price of $.87 for all domestic wra to- bacco. Likewise, that in this year Florida produced 17 cent of the filler tobacco grown in the United States, with an erage price of$.13 per pound, as compared with a national av e of
$.10 per pound for filler. Florida's wrapper tobacco tb as a lower price than that produced in other parts of the c but its filler tobacco commands a higher price. 4 Processing of Tobacco in the Tampa Plants. When the imported Havana tobacco from Cuba arrives a, it remains in sweating at the warehouses of the *epanies til it is needed at the factories. Then the unatemne ftller is at to the stripping department where it is stripped by hand. hand stripping operation In the Tampa plants is done almost en ly by women, and is the lowest paid operation in the plant. About 27 per cent of the imported filler tobacco reo d in the Tampa plants has been stripped In Cuba, so does not this -operation in Tampa. The proportion of filler strlp in Cuba has decreased in recent years in 1929 being as high 48 per cent. After the stripping operation the filler is stored f cur- ing. It is then blended in a.speaal department, or mixed th tobacco from other plantations. fhis blending is for the se of giving different tastes or flavors to cigars, Baoh ctur- er has his individual formulae for the blending of cigars These blends have usually been kept about the same for many ye occa- sionally new blends being used. Besides blending Havana t eco, mixed blends of Havana and domestic tobacco are also used The method of blending the.tobacco in the Tampa plan is not as scientific as that used in most northern plants. In t Tampa plants the different kinds of tobacco which are to be ble are weighed in correct proportions and then mixed together in ig pile and shuffled and reshuffled by hand. When this oper on is finished the pile as a whole contains the correct blend, there is no certainty that the small quantity going into each c is perfectly blended. Northern hand cigar paUnts give each - maker a quantity of different kinda oi filler and let nia nd it in exact proportions for each 1 at his bench. Ma plants blend their filler in mixing IMa The wrapper tobacco is allbWped in Tampa. When y to be used it goes to the casing Sm, where workers called eri loosen the leaves in the haad a prepare it for strippi It is moistened in water, or wpayed lightly with water, and allowed to stand a few hours or overnight, After this it ready for stripping. In this operation the entire center stem i e- moved, leaving the two halves which are to be seed as ra for cigars. In the northern plants the right and left hand leave e separated into two piles which are given to different ope a. By working with right hand or left haad wrappers exclusive the rollers in these plants are able to roll faster than if th o were not separated. In the Tmpa plants the right hand a eft hand leaves are not customarily separated. After the wrappers have been stripped, the wrapper 1 a go to the selectors. These are workers skilled in types of t coo. They grade the wrappers and determine the class of cigars which they are to be used. In doing this attention is paid to t size THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA and shape of the leaves, the color, the pron1nence of the side veins and other aspects of texture. Classification of the wrappe: leaves is complex, since a factory making clear Havana cigars fre quently has 50-100 sizes and shapes, each of which needs a special kind of wrapper. Selectors are well paid, with some variation to: their skill. There are four classes of selectors in a plant, the first two working on high-price cigars, the third on medium-grade and the fourth on low-grade cigars. Miscellaneous factory workers assist in the operations con- nected with the handling and preparation of the tobacco. 5 Classification of Cigarmaking. Processes, In the sub-sections of Part II which follow, the different processes used in cigarmaking will be explained briefly. A classification of these is given at this point, after which they will be taken up individually. This classification is given in Table 4. The classification shows the separation between the processed used for the long filler and the short filler cigars, the former being mostly hand methods, and the latter mostly machine methods. Long filler manufacturing processes have gradually evolved from 'the old Spanish hand system, under which the cigars were made en- tirely by one operator, to a highly efficient long filler machine, which makes the entire cigar. Another hand method, which is fast- er than the Spanish hand method, is with the use of a moldi With this process the bunchmaker, or worker making the bunch, places it in a mold to shape it, thus speeding up this process to the point where two rollers, or workers putting 6n the wrappers, can be kept busy. The subdivision of the hand mold into Havana and shade refers to the respective wrappers used The competitive system is the one used in northern hand oigal plants, being so termed because the companies using it,are the strongest competitors of the Tampa cigar industry, and by the use of this very productive system, are consistently gaining ground oz the Tampa industry. It is what might be called a semi-machine process, in which the bunchmaker uses a Liebbrman hand-bunching machine, or rubber apron which is hand operated and permits a fast operation in the making of the bunches. Other devices, such as molds, suction tables to assist the rollers by the use of air suction, and thimbles, or small metal devices to shape the head ol the cigar, may be used with it. This is the system some of the Tampa manufacturers would like to install in their plants. The Tampania drum mold system was invented by a Tampa manu- facturer. It is similar to the competitive system in that the. Lieberman hand-bunobaking machine is used, but provides for a large revolving drum with molds In which the bunchmaker places the bunches, and the rollers remove these as the drum revolves toward them. The automatic machine for long filler cigars is operated by four workers, and makes the complete cigar. It is not used in Tampa or to any extent in the south. Among the abort filler processes the hand mold is very simi- lar to the long filler hand mold process. As a less productive and hence more expensive process than the other two for making short filler cigars, it tends to be used on a somewhat higher grade of cigar than these. The machine-bunched, hand-rolled process, used on short fill- er cigars, is where the bunches are made entirely by a machine, while the rolling is done entirely by hand. The automatic short filler machine is operated by two worker and has the lowest cost of any cigar manufacturing process. It is widely used throughout the country on short tiller cigars, being used by the machine companies in Florida. For the purpose of administering the internal revenue tax on cigars, the Bureau of Internal Revenue has divided them into five CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 19 classes, according to their selling prioe. These class e com- monly referred to, in discussions of the industry. The asses, with their selling prices, are as follows: Class A 5 cents and less Class B 5.1 esnts 8 cents Class 8.1 oents 15 oents Class D 15.1 cents 20 cents Class B Over 20 cents 6 Spanish Hand Process of Cigasmaking The oldest known method of making cigars is by the sh hand process. This is a complete hand system, under all the cigarmaking operations are performed by hand, and all one by one worker. It is a handicraft process, somewhat simil o that of the old hand spinners and weavers, maWn years ago. e in- teresting, it has been superseded in productivity for a years by newer proeoeses involving the use of mechanical devi and by machines. It is used much more extensively in Tampa th n any other olgarnking center. The famous clear Havana centers at Key West and were started with the Spanish hand method of making cigars, to the limited productivity of workers under this process, its lication has bean restricted largely to high grade cigars. With process the only tool needed by a cigarmaker are & special board and a curved knife. In the traditional Spanish hand p no binder is used, only the filler and wrapper. In the factory, cigarmakers are seated.at tables which rests their work board. They are given supplies of fill binder and wrapper tobacco. In the northern cigar plants, all rial issued to workers is checked carefully. In the Tampa p the wrappers and-binders are counted when issued, but no ch is made of the filler. It would be contrary to an old cus to weigh the filler in the Tampa plants, and as such would be rea ad by the workers. Much waste of filler is reported. A gauge pro- vided to permit measurement of the thickness of the ciga and a rule for measuring its length. As an initial operation, work- er first trims the wrapper to the right sine. He then f the bunch, taking filler leaves in his hand and placing the eas one by one in parallel fashion so that a draft for smoke is i ted. The cigarmaker versed in the Spanish hand mePtod views h work as an art and is proud of his ability to Judge the arrange of filler by "the feel of the hand." Bach leaf is so place at the tip of the leaf is always.to the burn of the cigar and t side veins upward and toward the left. After arranging the b the cigarmaker rolls the cigar, starting at the lighting end "tuck," and finishing at the end which goes into the mouth, which a termed the "head" of the cigar. In completing the head, the wr r is pasted with a little gum tragaoanth, a tasteless gluey s tance which is obtained from Asia. As each oigarmaker completes 50 cigars, he ties th in a bundle and places his number thereon. The number provide the basis for tabulating the cigarmaker's wages under a piece rk sys- tem. At the end of each working day the cigars are coll ed by employees who come around with hand trucks on which their trays. The cigars are piled on these, rolled to the ele r, and taken down to the inspection room, where the foreman a them the next morning. In the northern cigar plants the wor bring their finished cigars to a table in the working room twi day, and the foreman inspects them as they are brought in. saves the expense of collecting the cigars, and likewise permit effects in workmanship to be pointed out to oigarmakers immediate In the Tampa plants the foreman is prohibited by cu from making but one inspection trip each day through the plan this THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA being made about noon. He may thus be unable to correct the de- fective work of any cigarmaker until a day and a half has elapsed after the cigars were made. On his inspection trip through the cigarmaking room, the foreman must also be careful not to pick up many cigars for examination from any particular worker, or this would be resented. Picking and packing teamwork is the next step. Under, the Spanish system still generally used in Tampa, workers serve in pairs,one picker and one packer composing a team. For this work the men are equipped with broad tables and good lighting facil- ities. The picker is skilled in picking out 50-100 different colors of Havana tobacco. As 50 cigars of a uniform color are sorted in a pile by the picker, his teammate, the packer, takes charge and properly arranges the cigars in a box. The box se- lected for the packing must contain the proper "front mark" such as perfectto, panatelaa", "corona", "queen"i etc. This front mark identifies the particular size and shape contained. The picking and packing by the Spanish system involves a great amount of work, on account of sorting the cigars into many different piles. It can be seen that sorting into 50-100 piles and then packing each pile separately requires much time. In northern plants of all types and in Florida machine plants, the packing is done by the American system. This requires only one worker instead of two. This individual first divides the cigars into six piles, according to shade, and then packs them, making a further separation according to color, as he,packs the cigars. The American system of packing is far more economical than the Spanish method. Under the latter system the picker receives$1.10 and the packer $1.10 per M cigars, above the B class, mak- ing the combined cost$2.20. As contrasted with this cost, the
rate for picking and packing the same quality: cigars by the Amer-
ican system, called grading the cigars, is $.60'-$.90;
After the packing operation the packed box of cigars goes to
a table where bands are put on each cigar. This necessitates
taking the cigars from the box, but they are repacked by the
banders exactly as they were found, In this same operation each
cigar is placed in a cellophane wrapper. Theo box of cigars is now
ready for the affixing of cancelled revenue stamps as required by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Machines to put..on the bands and cellophane are in use in
practically all of the northern cigar plants,?and are likewise
used in the Florida machine cigar plants, and some of the hand
plants in Tampa. Some plants also have machines for putting rev-
enue stamps on the boxes.* There is a great saving through the
use of machines instead of hand labor for these operations. The
banding, cellophaning and stamping operations- are usually done by
women.
After the packing operations are finally-completed, the boxes
of cigars are placed in a storeroom which is usually humidified,
to keep them fresh. They remain in this storeroom until shipped.
The northern cigar .companies pay more attention to proper air-
conditioning of the rooms in which their cigars are stored than
is done in Tampa, as the climate of this city makes air-condition-
ing unnecessary.

7 Hand Mold Process of Oigarmaking.

The hand mold process of cigarmaking originated in an effort
to improve on the productivity of the Spanish'hand system. Molds
first came into use in the fourth quarter of the last century, but
their use was not widespread until after 1910. They were used
then in Tampa to a considerable extent and pzrved popular, the
manufacturers liking the lower cost of production which they per-
mitted, and the workers their higher earningsiwith them.
In the mold process the cigarmakers work in teams of three,

CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 21

one bunchmaker and two rollers. The bunohmaker keeps the. o roll-
ers supplied with bunches and they put on the wrappers. bunch-
maker places a special binder leaf around the filler, to the
bunch, binders being necessary with molds. Then, as ea unh is
finished, he inserts it into a mold. This device consist of two
wooden blocks in which cigar shaped receptacles have bee arved.
The molds are of two sizes, some holding ten cigars and e twen-
ty. After the bunches have been placed in the molds, if n
molds, they are allowed to set a certain length of time. closed
molds, a top is placed over them and pressure applied in sold
press. After a period of ten-twenty minutes the top is en off
the mold and the bunches are ready for the rollers, whoas sk it
is to put the wrapper on and finish the cigar. Rollers the
Tampa plants are frequently experienced with the Spanish d pro-
cess and perform the operation in the same manner, only ter,
as they have but one operation to do instead of several, can
attain a greater speed than with the Spanish method. Th unh-
maker also has a greater speed because of the specialisal of
his work. Ther mold process is a good example of increase produc-
tivity due to division of labor.
In the northern factories, hand-made long filler ci s are
made mostly by mold. In the Tampa plants, the mold i-s to a
fairly large extent on long filler cigars, while all sho filler
Havana and shade mold differ in that the former has Havana
wrapper, and the latter a domestic wrapper. In the Tam igar in-
dustry there is a rate problem involving these two, dat back to
1910. The mold was coming into use in Tampa about that and
thinking it would detract from the hand process, efforts mae
to discourage its use. These took the form of placing a, rate
on the labor used in making shade mold cigars the only made
at that time by mold. Molds soon became popur and we ed
with Havana tobacco. The rate for Havana mold was fixed only
$1.00 less than Spanish hand, which was much higher than de mold. The variation in these rates may be seen from the allowing illustration: Retail Price Havana de of Cg a Size Mold Rate Size M ate 4 VFx 39 80 4 77x 42 2/25s 4 3/4 x 42 2.00 4 3/4 x 43 .00 3/50 5 1/4 x 40 34,00 5 1/4 x 41 .00 This differential is entirely too high, and should lowered, in fairness to Havana mold producers. Suggestions for t are contained in Part-VII of the Report. It might be mention that Havana mold producers likewise have to pay an import dut their wrappers, to which the shade mold producers are not subj 8 Competitive Process of Cigarmaking. The competitive system of cigar manufacture is c d on frequently in this Report because of its importance to t ture of the Tampa industry. As explained, this consists of t rk by a bunchmaker and two rollers working together as a te of three, with the aid of a Lieberman hand-bunching machine pos- sibly several other mechanical aids. The bunchmaker make e bunches with the hand-bunching machine, which is a simple ch- rollidg device made of rubber.. First, the binder is pla in this and then the filler. The handle of the machine is p eand the binder is quickly rolled around the filler, forming bunch. Molds, either open oi closed, may be used with the syst If this is desired. A suction table to aid the rollers may like k be used, if desired. A suction table has a perforated metal ate for the rolling, underneath which is air suction to assia the op- erator. Small metal devices, with concave ends, called tables, are used in some plants to shape and anooth the head of t cigars. THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA There is no uniformity among the plants in the northern area with regard to the use of these devices to assist the Lieberman hand-bunching machine. Molds are used in some plants and not in others, suction tables are used by some plants and not by others, and thimbles likewise. It depends on whether the workers have been trained to use these devices, in which case their use would increase productivity, If they are unfamiliar with them, their productivity is usually higher without them and the plant does not use them. In one New Jersey plant, some workers in the plant use molds, others do not. In another New Jersey plant the cigar- makers on one side of the working room use suction tables, while those on the other side do not. Experienced olgarmakers state that they are hindered rather than helped by the suction tables. Tampa cigar manufacturers are interested in the competitive system, and would like to use it in their plants. It permits a lower production cost for the manufacturer and higher earnings for the workers, than under the hand or mold systems. Along with the competitive system the Tiapania process will be described, as it is very similar. In this process, the Lieber- man hand-bunching machine is used, in connection with suction tables, if desired. However, in place of regular molds, there is provided a large revolving drum, fitted with.mold receptacles, which turns in a groove laterally across the working table. The buncbmaker sits on one side of the table and the rollers on the other. As the bunchmaker finishes his bunches he places them in the mold receptacles on the drum wheel, which slowly turns as these are filled. The rollers on the other side take them out as needed. As there are fifty receptacles in the drum wheel for bunches and these revolve in a complete revolution before reach- ing the rollers, they are pressed in the process. A small knife on the drum cuts off the tuck, or lighting end of each cigar as it revolves. The Tampania process was invented by a Tampa manu- facturer and is still in the experimental stage. The cost of installing the competitive sstem is about$25
per table for each team of three workers. The cost of putting in
the Tampania system is about $75 per table. 9 Bunching-Machine, Hand-Rolling Method. This is a process which uses a machine for performing one operation in cigarmaking, and has the other done by hand. It is used only on short filler cigars, of a cheap grade. This bunch- ing machine is a power machine which makes the completed bunch, being operated by one worker. For the operation the short filler is put into a hopper on top of the machine by a worker in the plant, who keeps a group of machines supplied with filler. From this position it is fed or forced, in small quantities sufficient for a cigar, into a depres- sion in a canvas belt, used to put on the binder. A binder is sup- plied by the operator of the machine for each bunch of filler, as it reaches a certain position.. The machine wraps the binder around the filler in a rolling motion and the bunch is made. No labor is required in the operation of the machine except to feed filler tobacco into the hoppers, and place the binders. When completed the bunches are placed in closed molds and pressed for about twenty minutes, after which they are given to hand-rollers who put on the wrappers. One bUnching machine will supply bunches for eight to ten rollers, and keep them busy. This process is used in a considerable Dumber of Tampa plants for low grade short filler cigars. Its chief appeal is its econon of operation, Which is greater than any of the hand or semi-machir methods. However,it is not as economical as the automatic machine The bunching-machine used in this process may be the same as is used with a rolling machine to form a complete automatic machir making the entire cigar. Some plants first used bunching-machines with hand-rollers, then installed rolling machines to go with the and make the entire cigar automatically. CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 25 10 Automatic Machines. Short filler automatic machines for making the entire igar were introduced in 1912 and long filler machines in 1917. or a number of years both were in the experimental stage, but improved to a high degree of efficiency. By the early 19 s they were being used successfully. In 1919 2.5 per cent. the cigar production of the United States was made by machi By 1925 this had increased to 15 per cent. In 1929 55 per c of the cigar production was machine made, and by 1958, over per cent of all the cigars manufactured in the United States e made on machines. Table. 5 shows the machine and hand production of the ffer- ent classes of cigars. It is seen .that 87 per cent of CI A cigars are manufactured by machine and 60 per cent of Cla B cigars. Class C has 65 per cent of its production still e by hand, while the hand method is used entirely for Classes d E cigars. These figures show how far the cigar industry one toward mechanization in the two decades since machines we first used. The long filler machines have tended to be used mot in northern plants, and the short filler machines by son lants. ne short filler machine ia used in Tampa and elaewhe i rida it will be described first. The short filler machine is really two Maabines oa dthe bunching machine that has just been described, and an au tic rolling machine placed next to it, and used in conjuncti ith it. When the bunch is completed by the bunching half of machine, instead of being taken out and placed in a mold,t is left in the machine and carried forward to the rolling s on to be wrapped. On the way the head is shaped and the tuk immed off. The operator of this machine .places a wrapper on ap- per die for each cigar, where it is held down by suction cut to the desired form. It is then carried forward to the per device, here the bunch is revolving through fluted roll Paste is applied to the end of the wrapper, after which a rolled around the revolving bunch, in a spiral motion, s ing from the tuck end. After being wrapped, the cigar is sha the head rounded and the tuck cut off at the proper leng all by machine operations. It is then deposited on the insp on table. The short filler machine is operated by two workers must work together with close cooperation. The speed of the e can be regulated to the speed of the operators. One me c is required to service fifteen short filler machines, and e t long filler machines, where a large number of them are used. an eight-hour day the short filler machine can turn out 56 0 cigars, the average output being about 4200. The labor coat of making a 5 cent cigar on a short ler ma- chine is much less than by any other method, being$1.70 M,
as compared with $7.56 by the machine-bunched, hand-roll roceas, and$9.50 by hand.
The long filler automatic machine is more complicate than the
short filler machine, requiring four operators. The fire these
feeds the long filler on to an endless belt, trimming it the de-
sired length. The quantity of filler necessary for each ar is
then measured in the machine, and the desired quantity a ted
from the rest and shaped as.to general size, head and tu The
filler, in the shape of a cigar, goes forward to receive bind-
er. The second operator places the binder leaf on the b r die,
where it is cut to the correct shape, and then carried o the
belt. The end of the binder is dipped in paste and roll round
the filler to form the bunch. This is further shaped by ling
before going to the wrapper. The third operator cuts th appear
to the right shape on the wrapper die in the same manner the
binder was cut. The wrapper carrier then takes it to tb apping
i

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

device, where it receives a supply of paste and is rolled around
the bunch. The cigar is again smoothed by rolling, cut at the tuck
end, and deposited on the inspection table. The fourth operator
examines all cigars, placing them ni racks for the packers. This
operator likewise patches imperfect cigars.
Operators on both short filler and long filler machines have
been mostly women since machines were first put into use. Hand
pigar workers as a rule have not been employed as cigar machine op-
erators. This has resulted in the displacement of a number of old
cigarmakers, and the employment of new workers, This situation is
discussed later in the Report.
Mechanization of the cigar industry has affected the number
and size of factories producing cigars. Before the introduction
of machines, a large proportion of cigar production was in small
*factories, while at the present time over half of the total pro-
duction is made in large factories. In 1920 there were 11,585
cigar plants in the United States, while in 198 there were 4,157.
Mechanization of the cigar industry has also influenced the
trend toward the consumption of low price cigars, and in turn has
been influenced by it. By lowering production costs to a very low
level, it has made available to the consumers of the country a
large supply of low-price cigars, equal in quality to higher priced
cigars of former periods. In turn the increasing demand of conaum-
ers for these low-price cigars has resulted in an expansion of the
operations of the machine companies.

11 Comparative Costs of Different Processes.
Some comparative figures will be cited to show the relation
of the costs of the various processes.
Iower labor costs on the short filler machine have been
mostly responsible for the increase in the production of short
filler, as the labor costs for short filler are 25 per cent less
than for long filler and 64 per cent less than the hand process.
Some figures taken from a study made by the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics are given to show the labor require-
ments of the different systems in man-hours, in cigar factories
throughout the country. Table 6 shows the comparative amounts
of labor required per M for 5 cent cigars, by the hand process
and four-operator machine for the long filler cigars and the ma-
chine-bunched and two-operator machine for the short filler cigars.
This includes all the labor used in the plant, such as leaf prepa-
ration, stripping, cigarmaking, packing, cellophaning and banding,
box labeling and miscellaneous labor.
It is seen from this table that while the hand process re-
quires a total of 35.58 man-hours, the four-operator machine re-
quires only 15.96 man-hours on long filler cigars. The labor re-
quired for long filler machine production is thus 47.8 per cent
of that required for long filler production by hand. For the
short filler cigars the labor required by the two-operator machine
is only 43.1 per cent of that required by the machine-bunched,
hand-rolled method.
Comparing the four types of operations, It is seen that the
hand process is the most expensive. The machine-bunched,hand-rolle
method requires only 85.4 per cent as much labor as the hand pro-
cess, the four-operator machine only 47.8 per cent as much, and
the two-operator machine only 35.9 per cent as much.
Using the average wage rate paid hand cigar workers in the
United States, $.35 per hour, it is seen that the labor cost of th hahd process is #5.55 more per M than the machine-bunched, hand- rolled process,$15.64 more per M than the long filler machine cos
and $19.61 more per M than the short filler machine cost. These differences in labor costs represent substantial items in the tota cost of manufacturing cigars. The productivity of the bunching machine is about 4,000 ci- gars in an eight-hour day, of the short filler automatic machine CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 25 about 4,200, and the long filler machine about 4,200. In addition to labor, the operation of the machines als other expenses, such as amortization, power and light, re rs, oil and grease, and maintenance costs. The annual operate costs of these for the bunching machine and the short filler ne are given in Table 7. This shows that the annual operate cost of a bunching machine, exclusive of labor, is$300, and annual
cost of a short filler machine, exclusive of labor, is $7 The annual operating costs of a long filler machine not obtainable, but the operating costs per M cigars are sho n Ta- ble 8. The total machine costs of operating a long fille chine on 5 cent cigars amount to$2.56 per M.
A detailed statement showing comparative costs of ctur-
ing a 5 cent cigar by the machine process, combination ma e and
hand process, (machine-bunched, hand-rolled), and hand pr s is
shown in Table 9.
These figures were prepared by the United States Dep nt
of Commerce, and are taken from a report on the cigar ind
They include plants throughout the country. In this stat t
costs are separated into materials, labor, miscellaneous over-
head. It is seen that the machine plants have the highest oat
for materials, this amounting to $16.89 per M, as compare bth$15.86 for the combination machine and hand plants and $1 for the hand plants. The cost of tobacco is higher in the ma e plants than the others, indicating that a better grade of acco is used in their operations. Boxes, labels, and cellopha cost more in the hand and combination plants. The hand plants have a much higher labor cost than t others', this being almost three times as great as the labor cost f the ma- chine plants, and about 50 per cent greater than the lab oat in the combination plants. The labor cost per. in the h plants is$11.66, as compared with $7.50 in the combination plan and$4.18 in the machine plants.
The cost for stripping is higher in the machine plan than
in the others, while the selectors cost more in the hand ts.
The packing costs $.50 in the machine plants, as contras with$ .77 in the combination plants, and $1.10 in the hand pi a. Other employees engaged in preparing the tobacco cost the hine plants$1.13 per M. The biggest items of labor cost for hand
and combination plants are for bunchmaking and rolling, cost,
$8.61 for the hand plnts and$5.54 for the combination p ts.
The miscellaneous and overhead costs run a little hi in
the machine and combination plants than in the hand factor
on.account of the expenses of operating the machines. Th cost
is $4.62 for the machine plants,$4.00 for the combination ants,
and $5.00 for the hand plants. The machine plants have ow- eat total costs per M, 25.68, the combination plants the t,$27.56, and the hand plants the highest costs, $29.66. A careful inspection of the foregoing tables will ma clear the respective cost advantages of the different types of ine processes. At the present time automatic cigarmaking machines not sold, but are leased. The installation charge for a long ller machine is$4,500, for a complete short filler machine $2 and for a bunching machine,$1,500. In addition to this their re-
quired an annual rental of $750 for both long filler and t filler machines, or, a royalty based on production, of$1. per
M cigars produced. If a company uses the niachines regular the
annual rental basis is the most economical type of contra If
the use is not regular, the royalty per M cigars manufactu is
the best arrangement. I ,
There are in Florida 417 short filler machinesiax, gfill-
er machines, and 177 bunching machines. The i'cation pf t e is
shown fn Table 10. It is seen that the largest number of lt
filler machines is in Jacksonville, and the next largest Tampa.
The large machine plants of the Swisher Company in Jackso le

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

and the Havatampa Company in Tampa operate most'of these machines.
Almost all of the bunching machines are in Tampa, scattered through
the hand plants, with some used by the Havatamp0 Company. The loig
filler machine has never been used to any great extent in Florida.
The foregoing has dealt with the comparative costs of the dif-
ferent types of machine operation as compared with hand operation
in cigar plants throughout the United States. .
Inasmuch as the Tampa cigar industry is essentially a hand in-
dustry it will be of interest to compare the respective costs of
the various hand processes.
Data concerning the productivity per hour,pper 8-hour day, and
per 40-hour week under the Spanish hand method, the hand mold meth-
od, and the machine-bunched, hand-rolled methodihave been gathered
from the Tampa plants and appear in Part VI of this report. Table
102 in Part VI, shows these figures. Data concerning the produc-
tivity with the use of the competitive method oS cigar manufactur-
ing were gathered in the course of a field trip through northern
plants in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. While several
Tampa plants are experimenting with the competitive method, their
operations are not complete enough to be fully representativee of
its productivity. The plants in the northern alea have used it on
a large scale for some time.
Table 101 in Part VI, shows the actual productivity of cigar-
makers in Tampa during a 12-month period. However, as most of
these weeks did not include a full 40 hours, a iore exact basis of
comparison can be obtained from the figures in Table 102, which .
was compiled on the basis of exact hours, 8-hour days, and 40-hour
weeks. Because of incomplete plant records, it was impossible to
get these data for all of the plants, but the oges Included repre-
sent the best-operated plants in Tampa, and posasbly have the high-
est productivity by the present hand methods.
These findings show that, using the Spanish hand method, eadh
Tampa cigarmaker in 1938-1939 produced 13.35 cigars per hour, 106.8
in an 8-hour day, and 534 in a 40-hour week, Uder the hand-mold
method each worker produced 20.44 per hour, 1653. in an 8-hour day,
and 817.6 in a 40-hour week. Using the machine-bunched, hand-
rolled method, 42.58 cigars were produced per hdpr by each worker,
340.6 in an 8-hour day, and 1,703.2 in a 40-hour week. '
According to the investigation of the northern cigar compa-
nies,the productivity in plants using the competitive method of
cigarmaking ranges from 250-350 cigars per cigariaker per 8-hour
day. There were instances of still higher prod tivity in some
of the plants. Productivity under the system vaqies with the type
of cigar and the condition of the tobacco. If this average of
250-350 cigars per day is compared with the Tampa average of 306.8
for the Spanish hand method, and 163,5 for the hind mold method,
it can be seen that the competitive system is much more productive
than the hand methods used at present in Tampa. It is understood
that the present productivity of the workers is niuh lower than it
would be under conditions of full employment and capacity operations
of the plants. Taking a low average for the productivity of the
competitive system as 250 cigars per day, it is teen that this sys-
tem is 234 per cent as productive as the Spanish hand method, and
153 per cent as productive as the hand mold metfd. The machine-
bunched, hand-rolled process is used only with wort-filler cigars,
so is not compared with' the competitive system, ihlch is used on
medium and high-grade long-filler cigars.
Average wage rates-for oigarmakers under th1 competitive sys-
tem are somewhat difficult to present, as these states vary between
the various plants. Believing that it would be better to show rates
actually used,' Tdble 11 has been prepared, listing these. In this
table te.1 oWi medium, and high rates for each soup of plants in
the northern area are shown.
'These rates are lower than the rates in effect in Tampa. How-
ever, the productivity is so much greater that the manufacturers
have a lower cost of production, and the cigarmaCers earn more than

,CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 27

with the higher rate and. lower productivity of the other me-
thods. An illustration showing the production of a 10 cen igar
by each of the methods will make this clear. This is cont ed
in Table 12. In this table the per worker productivity
ings under each method are shown. The earnings of the ker
and rollers using the hand mold and likewise the competiti me-
thods are assumed to be equal.
Productivity of dglarmmkers by the Spanish hand, and
mold methods 1s based On a low and a high scale the firs f
these on actual production records of the Tampa plants, p an
allowance for the Spanish hand workers in consideration of e 10
cent cigar, and for the competitive system the lowest p ivity
in plants using this system in New Jersey, New York and P 71-
vania. For the high productivity scale, figures wch re ant
the operation of the different methods under the most ad ous
conditions are used.
According to these illustrations, the labor cost per igars
for a 10 cent sise is $19.00 by the Spanish hand method,$ 95 by
the hand mold method (which represents an average between $18.00 for the Havana sold and$16.50 for the shade mold), and $5 by the competitive system.. The use of the competitive system thus result in a labor saving to the manufacturers of 27.6 cent over the Spanish hand method, and 20.3 per cent over the mold method. By multiplying the average cigars produced under the feent systems by the wage rate of each, the total earnings under oh sys- tem are shown. Under low productivity conditions, the Sp hand worker would earn a weekly wage of 12.35, the hand mold r$14.25, and the worker under the competitive system $17.19 By using the competitivee system, the cigarmakers oul 39.2 per cent more than under the Spanish hand method, and .8 per cent more than under the hand mold method. Under high productivity conditions, the Spanish hand ker would earn a weekly wage of$16.65, the hand mold worker $41, and the worker using the competitive system,$24.06.
This shows that, under the most favorable conditions, g
makers using the competitive system earn 44.7 per cent mo han
Spanish hand workers, and 24 per cent more than hand mold
This illustration indicates that the competitive sys of ci-
gar manufacturing has a labor cost differential ranging 203.
per cent-27.6 per cent over the Spanish hand and hand mold thods.
It also indicates that the oigarmakers using the oap tive
system have weekly earnings from 20.8 per cent-44.7 per a great-
er than under the Spanish hand and the hand mold methods.
The competitive system is easily adaptable to the hi grades
of cigars, and the earnings of thas igarmakers on these ex their
earnings on the medium grades. However, as has been point out be-
fore, more attention is given in these.northern plants to pre-
paration of the tobacco, this being in a condition more u ble for
working than in the Tampa plants. The high productivity o igar-
makers using the competitive process in the northern area due
partly to the excellent condition of the tobacco supplied .
Weekly wages earned by cigarmakere using the competit pro-
cess in modern factories in New Jersey, New York and Penns an
range from $16,00$22.00 an average being around $18.00 t the present time. These plants were restricting their out to some extent when these figures were taken. The respective costs of performing several plant ope one other than oigarmaking by machine and by hand will be ve The cost of stripping by machine is about one-third 1 than the cost of hand-stripping. In the Tampa plants rates of 1 cents per hand on binders and 23 cents on wrappers are paid for dipping by hand, while the machine cost is 153 cents for both type f leaves. The saving in the stripping of filler by machine I ]most as great. Stripping by hand requires 3.5 times as much la as by machine, but the latter method involves capital and mai ce charges for the machines. As has been mentioned,filler is ipped entirely by hand in the Tampa plants. Earnings of worked n THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA stripping machines are higher than those of hand strippers. An operator in one Tampa plant earned$12.50 stripping by hand, and
subsequently, $23.00 by machine. The cost of cellophaning by hand in Tampa is 50 cents per XM while the cost of banding by hand is 60 cents per M. As compared with this combined cost of 11.10 for both operations by hand, the rate per M for cellophaning and banding on one machine is 36 cents per M. The cellophaning and banding machines have a productivity of about 28,000 cigars per day. The workers on these machines have a productivity eight times that of the had process. The operators of these machiness earn from$17.00 22.00 weekly.
A machine is used in some of the larger plants for affixing
the internal revenue stamps on the packed boxes of cigars. This
stamping machine has a capacity of about 32,000 per day. Workers
on this machine have a productivity of four times that of the
hand method.
There is a machine used in some plants for punching the holes
in the cigar heads, punching 5 cigars at a time. Where this is
done by hand it.costs 20 cents per M.
Tnese machines have resulted in considerable savings to the
plants.
In some of the most efficient plants in the northern area the
minimum wage paid is $12.50 per week, received by the janitor. These northern plants have a substantial freight differen- tial over the Tampa plants, marketing most of their production in the northern area. 12 Processes Used in the Tampa Cigar Industry. In its early development, the cigar industry of Tampa was strictly a Spanish hand industry. After 1910 molds began to come into prominence in the industry. As these were successful and were an improvement in productivity over the Spanish hand system, their use increased until now they are used by all the Tampa com- panies. According to the findings of this survey, the mold method of cigarmaking is 159 per cent as productive as the Spanish hand process, in the Tampa plants. This would seem to indicate that the mold method of making cigars has a promising future in the Tampa industry. Most of the Tampa plants have likewise adopted the bunching machine for use with hand rolling for their Class A short filler cigars. The machine-bunching, hand-rolling process is 308 per cent as productive as the Spanish hand method, and 193.7 per cent as productive as the mold system in the Tampa plants. It would appear practical to use this system on short filler cigars rather than the Spanish hand or mold methods. In recent years some Tampa plants have also installed short filler automatic machines for their Class A cigars. These have worked very satisfactorily. The.cost-advantage with these ma- chines is much greater than with any of the other processes. Com- parative data from the records of the Tampa plaass show that the productivity of the short filler machine is 15.9 times as great as the Spanish hand process, 10 times that of the mold method, and 5.2 times as productive as the machine-bunched, hand-rolled process* It would seem advisable for Tampa cigar manufacturers to in- vestigate the possibility of using short filler machines for their Class A production. It need not be inferred that the Tampa industry must go en- tirely to a machine basis. Those manufacturers who study produc- tion costs carefully will probably use machines:for their Class A cigars. Contrary to a general belief in Tampa, the nineteen hand plants of that city are not producing the bulk of their cigars in the "A" classification at the present time. Data from their rev- enue books indicates that in 1938 they produced 43.8 per cent CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 29 Class A, 5.7 per cent Class B, 41.1 per cent Class C, 9.2 cent of Class D, and .1 per cent Class B. Over half of their uo- tion is still in the higher grades. Tampa is a high grade shade tobacco center, as well a clear Havana center. Assumng that machines were adopted r Class A production, there would still be about half of the out of the plants left to be made by other processes. It does not seem likely or advisable that long fille chines will be brought into Tampa to make long -filler cigars ab the Class A grade* These machines have been successful in t rth on low price cigars, but they have not been particularly cessful with the higher grades. In the opinion of certain expert the present long.filler machines are not suitable for the hi grades. Perhaps they may be perfected some day so as to produce t satis- factorily, but now their product is not equal to the grade hand-made cigars. Another factor to be considered is that Havana wra p do not lend themselves to machine production as readily as the d stie wrappers* Por this reason the clear Havana cigars would diffi- cult to make on machines. It is not believed that the T indus- try will resort to machines for its clear Havana product but it is thought that Tampa will continue to be primarily a lity cigar production center, with most of its output in clear vana cigars. However, other manufacturing centers making high cigars have gotten ahead of Tampa in production methods. The h not gone to machines, but have developed a process of anac that is still essentially a hand process, but is rch mo - tive than the old processes. Under this process, they c oduce a very high grade cigar, fully equal to Tampa's cigars, a ch less cost than the Tampa manufacturers, because of the hi r pro- ductivity. It might solve the problem of the Tampa industry as as mechanization is concerned, if it would adopt this produce hand system for its higher grade cigars. As no mechanical po is used with this method, the Tampa industry would still be pr ma a hand industry, making quality cigars by a hand process. the same time it would be able to compete successfully with i chief competitors, the progressive northern plants. The system erred to is the competitive system, which has been described. rA i i: Part III GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE US. 1 Summary of the Problems of the National Cigar Industry. The problems of the cigar industry of the United States will be summed up briefly in this sub-section of Pait III. Statisti- cal data illustrating the movements in the industry will be given in the rest of the section. The chief problem of the cigar industry is the declining con- sumption of cigars throughout the country. In 1920 there were 8,097,000,000 cigars consumed in the United States, while in 1938 this number had declined to 5,153,000,000. This represents a de- cline of 36.4 per cent. Sales of cigars are now only 65.6 per cent of those in 1920. Such a reduction in the market demand for the product of any industry would seriously handicap it. Various reasons have been given for this decline in cigar consumption. Some of the chief ones are related to the increasing consumption of cigarettes. Prior to the World War the temperance forces of the nation campaigned against the use of cigarettes as well as liquor. Whether this influenced smokErj is not known, but cigarette consumption was very low in that period. During the World War and thereafter, nothing was said against cigarettes, in fact millions of them were sent over to the boyb in the trenches. Cigarette smoking was quickly popularized among the men of the nation, young and old alike. Not only did men universally smoke cigarettes following this period, but women took up the habit. Large quantities of cigarettes were demanded annually by women. It became fashionable for both sexes to smoke tOgether at all social gatherings. Some women actually objected to men in the group smoking cigars, as it was more convenient for everyone to smoke cigarettes. Moving pictures featured their stars smoking cigarettes. Fashionable gatherings had a predominance of cigar- ette smoking. The cigarette companies were not slow to capitalize on the situation, and inaugurated national advertising campaigns that pro- duced prompt and satisfactory results. The advertising was partly industry-wide in scope, appealing to persons to smoke cigarettes, without naming individual brands. Effective appeals for specific cigarettes were made in newspapers and magazines, by signboards and other outdoor media, and over the radio. Usually the adver-' tising was centered around the pictures of beautiful girls, famous athletes, and celebrated members of society. It was very effective resulting in large, sales increases. Concerted advertising by different companies in an industry has been much easier in the case of the cigarette industry thaf the cigar industry, as the leading companies in the former are very much larger than in the latter, with plenty of means for sustained advertising. The cigar industry has been negligent in advertising, which has reacted strongly against it. No concerted effort has ever been made to induce people to smoke cigars. Individual advertising by the companies has been limited and not very effective. The sales methods of many of the cigar companies in the industry are like- wise in need of improvement. The merchandising of cigars is done carelessly, some dealers and merchants not keeping cigars in good condition but letting them dry out. Unethical advertising.by one cigar company hurt the industry. This was the famous "anti-spit" campaign, in which one manufacturer advertised that his cigars were machine-made, and therefore not made by putting spit on the head of the cigar. The faster mode of living affected cigar consumption, in that persons learned to prefer quick smokes, such as were given by cigar- ettes, to the more leisurely cigar smoking. After the World War GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE U. 31 a restless spirit pervaded the nation, and people were ou d doing things, rather than sitting quietly at home. The a mobile symbolized this era. Cigar smoking is not very convenient en getting in and out of cars, and making stops here and the A cigarette that could be listed and thrown away in a few te was considered more practical. Then, people have become nervous than formerly, and believe cigarettes quiet their res. Many smokers have preferred cigarettes because they are eco- nomical than cigars. All cigars appear expensive in coa son with cigarettes, especially those above the 5 cent price . Not only has total cigar consumption declined, but trend has been toward the smoking of cheaper cigars. In 1920, per cent of all cigars consumed in the United States were Cla A, or those selling for 5 cents and less. In 1958 88.8 per cen all cigars consumed were Class A. This trend toward the low ce cigars has worked a great hardship on companies making p 1- pally quality cigars. The trend toward mechanization in the cigar industry rais- ed problems of unemployment, as the machines displaced wo a. This has been particularly severe when hand plants were c letely mechanised. Labor troubles have persisted in the cigar industry, lefly in the unionized hand plants. The disputes have usually ered around wage rates. There have been some serious labor si tons in the cigar industry in New York City and Tampa and Key t, Florida, at different times. Other problems exist in the national cigar industry, will be seen from an inspection of the statistical data present in this section. 2 Development of the Cigar Industry in the United State Small Scale Shops. During the period 1800 to 1860 little factual data i vall- able concerning the production and consumptidh of cigars. e only useful index is found in the imports of cigars and leaf t coo. Up to 1860 moit of the imports of tobacco leaf and of bet ci- gars came from Cuba, while increasing quantities of chea cigars were imported from Germany and Belgium. After the Civil tar- iff duties on imports of cigars rose faster than those on to- bacco opening the way for the growth of a domestic cigar ustry. The earliest commercial supply of home manufactured ars came from small owner-operated craft shops. The only re cents for establishing a craft shop were a few inexpensive tool om- bined with skill acquired through several years' apprenti ip. Cigar products were usually sold in a local market, perha in front of the shop. In the earliest period of the Americ igar industry, the small craft shop was the predominant source pro- duction. In the latter part of the last century retail tobacco stores for the sale of cigars, smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, rff, etc., were widely distributed throughout the country. Th were usually dbsigated by the figure of an Indian, placed in nt of the store. these cigar-store Indians lasted until the Wo War period, when they were placed in museums as fond relies o era which had passed. The merchandising of cigars in the United States has en tak- en over largely by stores other than cigar stores, Where a large part of the total cigar sales were formerly made by cigar ores, this portion is now very small. In 1929 there were 35,2 igar stores in the United.States, while in 1955 this number ha declined to 15,350. In 1929 cigar stores made salesof$410,065, le in
1935 these sales had dropped to $182,950.1l) 1. Census of Business, Retail Distribution, Volume IV, 5, United States Census Bureau, Washington. THE CIGAR INDUSTRYOF TAMPA, FLORIDA Mechanical Improvements in the Hand Procer. The introduction in the cigar industry of the mold in 1869 made profitable the use of teamwork since it e*anoed the output per worker. Owners of the larger shops sought to introduce the teamwork system. As has been explained, this npthod consisted of three cigarmakers working together as a team, ope making the bunches and shaping them with molds, and the others putting on the wrappers. Since the use of molds was considered an infringement on the skill of hand cigarmakers, strikes of uni6nized, cigarmakers were precipitated in certain shops where this introduction was attempt- ed. Samuel Gompers, then a youthful cigarmaker in a New York shop, participated in one of these mold strikes when he Joined the work- ers of his shop in protest. Just prior to his death, Gompers ad- dressed the 1923 convention of the International Cigarmakers' Union at Chicago. In the speech which was entitled "Accept the Machine, Organize the Workers, he recalled his early experience in the mold strike and made the following observation: "I am free to say that from that time there camb some light to my mind, and I realized for the first time that it was absolutely futile for workmen to protest against or to go on strike against the in-troduction of a machine, a new device or a new tool.1t" Another mechanical aid which encouraged the spread of team- work was the suction wrapping device introduced in 1885. This de- vice is now generally identified as the suction table. Neither of these technical innovations competed with the hand- icraft process as machinery later did. Both enhanced the output per worker and thereby strengthened the hand system. Introduction of these improvements was checked but not prevented by the opposi- tion of cigarmakers who sought to protect their training in appren- ticeship and acquired skill. Cigar Machinery. Since 1900 cheap cigars have been made to a large extent by short filler bunching machines. As has been explained in Part II this machine makes the bunches, which then have the wrappers put on by hand rollers. If a rolling unit is added to the bunching machine, the short filler cigar can be made completely by auto- matic machinery requiring only two operators. The power bunching machine was introduced in 1886 by Borg- feldt of Metuchen, New Jersey. In 1902 an improved bunching ma- chine was introduced by Universal Machinery Company of Newark, New Jersey. In 1912 a rolling unit was added to the bunching ma- chine by the Cigar Machine Company of Baltimore, Maryland. At present two major types of short filler cigar machines are on the market, manufactured by the Arenco Machine Company and the International Cigar Machine Company. The former concern re- cently sotd its patent rights for a new model bunching and rolling unit to the International Cigar Machine Company1 but continues to sell bunching machines# The Arenco Oompany is a subsidiary of a Swedish manufacturing company and imports all of its products from Sweden. The International Company is a subsidiary of the American Machine and Foundry Company established by the American Cigar Com- pany in 1900. Experimentation over a long period at a cost of 7,000,000 dollars was necessary for the introduction in 1917 of a long fill- er cigar machine. The American Machine and Foundry Company and the International Cigar Machine Company introduced this four-opera- tor machine which offered the first serious competition to hand workers making long filler cigars. 1. Cigarmaker's Official Journal, October 15, 1925. GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE U. 3S A description of the operation of these machines has en given in Part II of this Report. Table 13 shows the distribution of short filler and filler machines in the principal cigar producing states. a table emphasizes the mall use of long filler machines in oda as compared with northern cigar states. Pennsylvania and Jersey have more than 2000 long filler machines in operate a compared with six in Florida. lach of these four-operato chines is capable of making over 4000 cigars per elght-h ay. The successful development of cigar machinery has me that each manufacturer of cigars by machinery might have to in a large original sum in equipment which was formerly unnece r. Al- though cost of production is raised in the aggregate, it lowered per unit of product provided the machines can. be kept bu Adjustment to Wages and Hours Legislation. Table 14 shows average hourly returns in plants manf ring cigars, for cigar hand workers as compared with machine o tors. The minimum wage rate required for labor on products d in interstate commerce is set at 25 cents per hour with an ase to 30 cents scheduled for October, 1939. The Fair Labor dards Act of 1938, commonly known as the Wages and Hours Law, ca for continuation of the 30 cent rate for the period from 1939 1945, after which the minimma rate per hour rises to 40 cents, hand- workers in some of the plants are barely earning the min wage at the time of the making of this survey, it is essential at the plants speed up their labor productivity, presumably with hines. The effect of the Wages and Hours Law is toward mechanics and fewer but larger factories. This law has already caused clos- ing of a number of small machine cigar plants in Pennsylva manu- facturing 2 for 5 cent cigars with low wage scales. The Consolidation Movement Prior to 1917. While the hand process remained the chief method of p ucing cigars, the most efficient size of cigar factories was no ly the small to medium type. From 1890 to 1900, the American Tobacco Company was t- standing example of a large company in this field, exhibit a phenomenal growth in this period. It was successful in at ing substantial control of tobacco products in every branch of nu- facturing except the production of large cigars. In 1901 the American Tobacco Company invaded the lar igar industry, effecting a series of consolidations with the ob t of control. Its subsidiary, the American Cigar Company, ino rated in January, 1901, increased its control over large cigar p action from 4.8 per cent in 1901 to 16.4 per cent in 1903. Prom t time until dissolution of the trust in 1911, the control over t large cigar industry never exceeded 15 per cent. It is clear t the attempt of the trust to control the cigar industry was not y suc- cessful. According to one authority, this attempt failed use "monopoly principles andconditions did not prevail," at time in the cigar industry.J'r Later, as conditions changed, t ppor- tunity for large- scale control developed. Consolidation After 1917. After the cigar machine was introduced for the manufa e of large, long filler cigars there was a movement towards tne rapid use of large-scale methods. The economies involved d permit and encourage consolidation, being very favorable t large-scale operations. 1, Economic Developent of the Cigar Industry. Baer, W. , 1933. Art Prnting Company, Lancaster, Pa. THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA Table 15 shows that since 1917 the number of firms engaged in cigar manufacturing has declined by nearly two-thirds. Where- as 13,528 cigar manufacturers were operating when the long filler cigar machines were introduced in 1917, the number of manufacturers in 1938 had declined to 4,157. Part of this reduction was due to failures but there are many instances of consolidations of firms. In some cases consolidations resulted from the obvious advantages of large-scale operations, while in others they occurred because of financial stress arising from poor management, a declining mar- ket and other factors. The years since 1921 have witnessed a marked trend from pro- duction in many small and medium size factories, organized by relatively maall managerial departments, to larger units. Table 16 shows this trend, presenting data at intervals of several years. It is significant that 60 per cent of production in 1937 came from factories producing over 40,000,000 annually. This compares with 15.7 per cent of the total output from this same class in 1921. While a continuous growth took place in the factories producing in excess of 40,000,000 annually during the period 1921-1937, a consistent.reduction occurred in those making less than 40,000,000 annually. Obviously very large establish- ments were gaining at the expense of the small concerns. Although 9 companies control most of the output for each group of tobacco products except large cigars, little headway has been made in controlling cigar output. The firms producing most of the volume of Cigars are those specializing in cigars alone. Possibly the potentialities in the manufacture of cigars by machine and semi-machine methods are not being realized because some firms wish to push the sale of cigar- ettes. International Cigarmakers' Union. The development and present status of the International Cigar- makers Union will be treated briefly. The beginning of this organization was in 1864 in New York City. Like many other American craft unions its administrative set-up was characterized by decentralization. As soon as its or- ganization had grown sufficiently, it set up high standards of membership and. a system of benefits based on high dues. The union's policy in the period of its growth may be summarized as follows: (a) Establishment of a uniform rule which set three years' apprenticeship as preliminary to membership eligibility. (b) A uniform minimum wage of$7.00 per th sand.
(c) A program for an eight-hour working day.
(d) Requirement that union labels be used for all products
selling above $20 per thousand. (e) Refusal to permit members to work in non-union shops. A step which strengthened the Cigarmakers' Union was the in- stallation of a system of death, sickness, unemployment and traveling (loan) benefits. This virtually added a plan of insur- ance protection which was derived from the periodic dues just as strike benefits. In recent years the policy of the International Cigarmakers' Union has become less extensive in its scope. Union labels have. passed into disuse thile the eight-hour working day has been in- corporated as the general standard throughout American industry. Of the former broad system of benefits only strike benefits remain from the reduced dues. An apprenticeship rule is of small impor- tance when practically no young men are interested in becoming hand cigarmakprs. Minimum wages furnishing added protection to the worker have become a legislated fact in the Wages and Hours Law. During the past several decades the Cigarmakers' Union has faced declining membership. There was a growth in union membership GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE U. S. 35 to 1910. After this peak year, members were gradually r oed as the teamwork system was more widely adopted and the spre of ma- chinery began. Its membership has declined from 35,699 1 1920 to about 15,000 in 1959. Part of this decline may be charged to the reduction demand for high grade, hand-made cigars. HEwever, much of the e rests on the opposition of union workers to the introduction o machinery and mechanical aids and the slowness of admitting machine rkers. Such leaders as George W. Perkins and Samuel Gompers saw e need for organizing all cigarmakers if the organization was t main effective. Both realized that the organization of work must keep step with the evolutionary progress towards central tion and specialization. Both pointed out in speeches during e early 1920's that the cigar industry was gradually evolving men hand workers and mold workers to increased employment of mn on bunch making and automatic machinery. Their request for e or- ganization and admission of these machine workers went ded. At present, the membership is largely concentrated in the plants of Florida with the threat of continued decline sta 1 immi- nent. 3 Production and Consumption of Cigars in the United S es. The remainder of this section will consist largely an analysis of statistical tables showing trends and tondit in the national cigar industry. A close inspection of the able should result in the understanding of some of the major bems of the industry. In this sub-section figures pertaining cigar production and consumption trends will be presented. Table 17 shows the production of cigars in the Unite States from 1863-1938, by large and small classes. The class off all cigars is not very important, and is seldom referred to statis- tical comparisons. It can be seen from this table that the cigar indust in the United States has been a declining industry since 1920, afar as the total output and consumption of cigars is concerned. e cigar industry was prosperous for fifty years prior to 1920. It as a thriving industry during the latter part of the last cent in 1870 producing over 1,000,000,000 cigars, in 1880 over 2, 000,000, in 1890 over 4,000,000,000,and in 1900 over 5,000,000,0 he production in 1900 was greater than it is at the present e. In 1910 there were produced about 7,000,000,000 cigars, whil. the peak of production was reached in 1920, with a total prod$ tion of
8,000,000,000 cigars. During the 1920's the cigar output?' ld up
fairly well, although it was somewhat less than at the beg ing
of the decade. In the depression production dropped to a w fig-
ure in 1933, with 4,300,000,000 from which point it climb to
5,153,000,000 in 1938.
Tables 18 and 19 show the trend of cigar consumption' the
United States by revenue classes from; 1920-1938. These h4 been
explained as being based on price ranges. The significant changes
in the type of cigars produced can be seen from these table The
cigar industry of the United States has shifted to a low ce prod-
uct. In 1920 only 24 per cent of the totalproduction c listed
of Class A cigars, while in 1938, Class A cigars made up .8 per
cent of the total. Class B cigars, which accounted for a st one-
third of the total production in 1920, now have a negligi pro-
duction. A very serious decline has taken place in media rice
cigars, or Class C, which made up 42.8 per cent of the to in 1920
and only 9.4 per cent in 1938. The two higher classes ha never
represented more than a very small part of the national t 1, but
these show declines, that of Class B being particular p.
These tables constitute a vivid illustration of the shift the
American cigar industry to a lower-priced product.
In Table 20 the seasonality of cigar output can be The
months of high production are October, November, SeptembeI and
V-a

36 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

August, while the slack production months are December, January,
and February. This seasonality of production has varied somewhat
during this period, tending to be more concentrated in the busy
months. The peak of cigar sales is in the middle and late fall,
in anticipation of the brisk Christmas market. The lack of storage
equipment in most plants helps account for the pronounced seasonal
variations, as cigars must be kept under humidified conditions to
maintain their quality. Instability of seasonal production could
be remedied to some extent by the installation of humidor storage
Facilities, but the high cost of this is a deterrent in many plants.
The Tampa cigar plants do not have this problem,, as the temperature
and humidity are suitable for cigar production and storage without
artificial conditioning.
Tables 21, 22, and 23 show the distribution of the national
cigar production and its changing trends in the leading producing
states. The first of these tables gives the number of cigar manu-
facturing companies by states, the next the production of the eight
leading cigar manufacturing states, and the third the percentage of
total production of each state. The first of these tables shows
the reduction in the number of cigar manufacturing firms, and the
size of these, which have been commented on. From this table the
changes in the number of companies in individual states can be ob-
served.
It is seen from these tables that New York has the largest
number of companies, 1,010, but Pennsylvania produces the greatest
number of cigars, 37.4 per cent of the total. Florida has 197
companies, but produces 16 per cent of the total production. In
1920 Florida produced but 4.4 per cent of the national total. The
production of the large machine plants of the Swisher and Hava-
tampa Companies have been largely responsible for this increase.
Of the other states, Pennsylvania has been the leading pro-
ducer since the beginning of the industry, accounting for 29.5 per
cent of the total production in 1924. Most of the largest machine
plants in the industry are located in Philadelphia, such as the
Bayuk, Congress, Consolidated, and General Cigar Companies. Sub-
stantial increases were made in this period by New Jersey and
South Carolina. New Jersey has mostly hand plants, with some of
them, like the American Cigar Company's plants at Trenton, making
very high quality cigars. A machine plant constructed a few years
ago in Charleston, South Carolina, accounts for the increase in
the total of this state.
The heaviest decline in cigar production took place in New
York, whose proportion of total production dropped from 14 per
cent to 4.5 per cent. Troubles with organized labor in New York
have resulted in the removal of many plants to New Jersey, Penn-
sylvania and Florida. Other states showing a decline in total
production include Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, and Indiana.
In 1920, the leading cigar producing states were Pennsyl-
vania, New York, New Jersey, .Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, and Flor-
ida. In 1937, 65 per cent of the total national production was in
Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey. This indicates a concentra-
tion of cigar production in certain regions of the United States.
These tables likewise show the production of small cigars by
states. In Virginia the production of maall cigars has increased
from 47,129,000 in 1920 to 156,195,000 in 1937, this state being,
the leading producer. Florida has shown an increase in recent
years to 16,080,000. The production of small cigars has declined'
greatly in other states, in New Jersey dropping from 80,601,000 in
1920 to 4,799,000 in 1937,and in New York declining from 60,387,000
to 4,448,000 in this period. A smaller quantity is produced in
South Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Table 24 lists the average retail price for cigars sold in the
United States each year from 1920-1958. This proves conclusively
that cigar consumption in the United States has shifted to cheaper
cigars. According to these figures the average retail price of
cigars in 1920 was 11 cents, compared with 4.6 cents in 1938. This

I
GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE U. S. 37

is a reduction in average sales price of 68.2 per cent. Th price
reduction has been a great blow to the hand plants making lity
cigars.
4 Foreign Trade and Consumption of Tobacco Products.
Imports of cigars into the United States, including ents
from non-contiguous territories, have in recent years cons ed
chiefly of large shipments of very cheap cigars from the ip-
pines. It is reported that these cheap cigars are banded an
established American brand, and sold as American cigars. to
the World War period imports of high-grade cigars from Cu re
important. These continued to be imported in fairly large ti-
ties during the 1920's, but in recent years have dwindled a
very small total. Puerto Rico has shipped a quantity of c s to
this country for a long period, but in the last few years ee
shipments have declined sharply. Imports of cigars from o
countries are negligible. Very few cigarettes are import to
the United States. Figures showing cigar imports and shi ts
into the United States are contained in Table 25.
There are very few cigars exported from the United St ,
but substantial shipments of cigarettes. The export total
shown in Table 26. It might be interesting to Floridians ow
that one of the large machine cigar companies in the state, e
Swisher Company, is developing a substantial trade in fore
markets. There might be a good opportunity for the cigar i story
to recoup some of its losses by increased foreign business.
Cigar manufacturers desirous of developing a foreign et
for their product might be interested in Tables 27 and 28. e
first of these shows the estimated annual consumption of c a
and cigarettes in twenty European countries, from 1920-195 It
is seen that the consumption of both cigars and cigarettes
increased appreciably in this period, cigars by 21.3 per c
and cigarettes by 70.1 per cent. This would seem to be an
couraging indication of possible markets for cigars.
The second of these tables shows the per capital con a on
of cigars and cigarettes in each of eighteen European coun s,
compared with that in the United States. It is seen that
Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have the highest per capi
cigar consumption, each of these exceeding the United State The
United Kingdom is the greatest cigarette-smoking nation in pe.
5 Comparison of the Cigar Industry With the Cigarette ry.
It has been stated that the chief source of competition or
the cigar industry is the cigarette industry. So much em a
has been given to this situation, that a clear understand f
the exact relationship between the two industries is needed
secure an intelligent comprehension of it. Some figures co rn-
ing the two industries may be enlightening.
Table 29 shows a comparison of the per capital consumpt of
cigars and cigarettes in the United States from 1900-1938.
1900 the per capital consumption of cigars was 70.5, while 938
it had declined to 39.5, a decline of 44 per cent. In 1900 e
per capital consumption of cigarettes was 34.9, while in 19 t
had increased to 1,312.5, an increase of 3,660 per cent. C
consumption was twice as great as cigarette consumption in
while in 1938 thirty-three times as many cigarettes were co .
This comparison might be qualified by taking into cons a-
tion the fact that a cigar is larger than a cigarette and a
greater sales price. The average selling price of a cigar 4.6
cents, as compared with a little less than 1 cent for a ci tte,
so the price of the cigar is about five times as great. A
this allowance is made, the contrast in consumption trends
very striking.

;~I

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

Cigars reached their peak in per capital consumption in the
United States in 1907, and since that year have been steadily de-
clining. The highest per capital consumption for cigarettes was in
the most recent year, 1938. As per capital cigarette consumption
has increased in every year since 1900, with the exception of 1901,
1920, and the depression years, this might indicate that it is still
going upward and has not reached its peak. Even the depression did
not check cigarette consumption very much. These comparisons show
that the cigar industry has been going through a very unsatisfac-
tory period for many years, while the cigarette industry has en-
joyed a remarkable expansion.
It might be pointed out that because an industry is not
prospering, it does not necessarily follow that every company
in the industry is operating under unfavorable conditions. There
are some modern and efficient cigar companies which are being
operated very efficiently and with satisfactory results. These
are successful individually, but for the industry as a whole
their success is offset by the poorly-managed, inefficient plants.
Table 50 shows the comparative value of the products of the
cigar and cigarette industries in the United States. In 1909 the
value of cigars marketed was $214,000,000, or 5.2 times that of cigarettes, which was$41,000,000. In that year cigars made up
51 per cent of the value of all tobacco products, while cigarettes
comprised 10 per cent. There was a considerable.amount of smok-
ing tobacco, chewing tobacco, and snuff produced at that time.
In 1937, the value of cigars produced had declined to 169,000,000,
while cigarettes had increased to $968,000,000, or 5.7 times as much. In 1937, cigarettes accounted for 76 per cent of total tobacco products and cigars only 13 per cent. In 1937 cigars had declined to one-fourth of their 1909 proportion of total tobacco products, while cigarettes had increased their proportion about seven and one-half times. The actual increase in the value of cigarettes produced during this period was 2,595 per cent, while cigar production was declining 30.7 per cent. The number of wage-earners in each of the industries compris- ing the tobacco products group is shown for each year from 1919-1937 in Table 51. An interesting thing shown by these figures is that there are still over twice as many employees in the cigar plants, despite the disparity in volume and value of production. The reason for this is that the cigarette plants use large machines for making their products, and have mechanized equipment for other operations in their plants, so require a comparatively small labor force in proportion to.their output. Even in. the mechanized cigar plants, a larger number of employees are required for.the same volume of output than in the cigarette plants. As the cigar industry contains a large number of hand plants, and semi-machine plants, the total workers employed are considerably in excess of the requirements of the cigarette industry. Table 32 shows the average number of hours Worked weekly in the tobacco products industries. From this it is seen that the hours in the cigar industry have been uniformly longer than those in the cigarette industry. In the latest year shown, cigar plants had an average week of 36.3 hours, while the average week for the cigarette industry was 34.5 hours. It has been stated that the lack of adequate advertising by the cigar industry has been partly responsible for its downward trend. At the same time it was stated that effective advertising by the cigarette industry played an important pait in its phe- nomenal success. Just what is the situation relative to the com-, parative advertising of the two industries? Tables 355 and 54 contain the answer to this question. These show the respective advertising that was done in 1958 by leading companies in the two industries. Twelve companies comprise the cigar manufacturing group, while there are four companies repre- senting the cigarette industry. This might appear as an unequal comparison, but it is not, as the twelve cigar companies are re- GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THB CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE U. S 39 latively lse important in the cigar industry than are the cigarette companies in the cigarette industry. The striking thing about these figure is that in 19 four cigarette companies spent a total of 33,409,000, hi the twelve cigar companies were spending$2,877,000. The adve ing
expenditure for the cigarette group was thus 11.6 times as at
as that of the oigar companies. This seems to bear out th
pression that the cigarette industry advertises much wore -
sively than the cigar industry.
The respective types of advertising engaged in by the
panies in both industries can be seen from the tables. Th gar
advertising is mostly through the medium of newspapers, 80 cent
of the total being of this type, with 25 per cent in radio er-
tising, and a very small amount in magazines. The oigaret co-
panies carry 57.4 per cent of their advertising in newspa 24.4
per cent in magazines, and use the radio for 18.2 per cent.
Much difference exists in the advertising appeal of c ette
and cigar advertising. The former is for the purpose of c ig
new smokers as well as to convert present smokers to a part ar
brand. Most of the cigar advertising is basically a compe on
of firms within the cigar industry, each striving to fourth ts
brand at the expense of other cigar manufacturers, and all al-
ing to existing smokers. Until a broader concept of advert ng
is adopted by cigar manufacturers, emphasizing the cultivat of
new smokers by industry-wide advertising, the cigar indus 11
not gain its lost ground among American consumers.

6 Operating Costs and the Results of Operations.

Table 55 contains figures gathered by the Census of ao-
tures, showing certain operating data for the cigar ndust the
United States in census years from 1859 to 1937.
The number of establishments is first shown, and it d
be stated in this connection that only the larger factories e in-
cluded in this census. A striking fact is that there were e
cigar establishments in the United States in 1859 than in 1 .
However, the ones operating in the former year were ve
small. The number of cigar manufacturing establishments ed
its peak in 1904, with 16,394. Prom that year there was a dy
decline to 695 in 1957.
The number of wage-earners in the cigar industry in
to a peak of 140,956 in 1914, then declined in number each
to 1937, with a slightly lower total in the depression. p 37
there were 55,879 workers in the industry.
Wages paid were highest in 1921, with a total of $91, 000. In this year the price level was very high, which accounted tly for this large total. The high figure given for 1925 incl cigarettes, so should not be used. Prom this peak in wages re was a decline to 50,061,000 in 1935, then a rise to$57,5
in 1937.
Average annual wages increased from $517 in 1859 to in 1925. They declined to$551 in the depression year 1955, t in-
creased to $671 in 1957. Weekly wag, computed on the bas of average number of weeks worked, were- 13.45 in 1937. Material coats and value of product followed the gene trend of the industry, being$87,341,000 and $169,237,000 respect ly, in 1937. Table 36 shows the relation of the cost of materials a labor to value of product. It is seen that materials comprise a1 tly over half of the value of the finished cigars, and labor be one-fourth and one-fifth. The proportion of each to the to has increased slightly since 1929, materials from 44.4 per cent 51.6 per cent, and labor from 21.6 per cent to 22.2 per cent. The proportion of total cost that is represented by la is much higher in the Tampa hand plants than in the national i try, THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA while that for materials is lower. Figures given in Table 80, Part VI of the Rep6rt, show that labor comprised an average of 40.5 per cent of cost of sales, tobacco 30.2 per cent, and taxes 19.2 per cent, in the Tampa hand plants, during the period 1950-1938. In Table 37 the average weekly wage per worker in the cigar industry is given for the United States and the principal producing states, for census years from 1927-1957. This wage is based on the average number of working weeks. In 1937 the average cigar worker in the United States received$15.43.
Of the individual states. New Jersey paid the highest average
wage in its cigar factories, k14.08 per week. the modern hand
factories in New Jersey using the competitive method of manufacture
have much higher wages, but there are many small hand and machine
plants paying low wages, which reduce the state's average. The
average weekly wage received by Florida workers was $13.77, while the average wage paid in New York was$15.74.
The average wage paid in Pennsylvania was $12.79. As has been noted, the cigar industry in this state is largely mechanized. The modern machine plants of Philadelphia have a wage average consider- ably higher than this figure, but there are a niujber of.small machine plants in other sections of Pennsylvania, making very cheap cigars and paying low wages, which have lowered the average wage paid in this state. This table also shows decreased average wages in the cigar industry, for the entire country and for each of these individual states. The decrease has been greatest for Florida. However, inasmuch as the figures for the earlier years included the cigar- ette industry, it is difficult to make exact comparisons. As the cigarette production in Florida is negligible, it can be concluded that the wage decline in this state has been the sharpest of any. Wages in New Jersey have shown the greatest stability of any of the -states in this group, and have recorded the greatest increase since 1935. Table 38 contains annual summary indices for the cigar in- dustry for the period 1919-1936, the year 1929 being used as a base year. From this table it can be seen that employment in the in- dustry has decreased much more rapidly than production. In 1919 the employment index was 135.8 as compared with the production index of 112.5. In 1936 the situation was reversed, with the pro- duction index being 77.6, and the employment index 66.5. Between these years production decreased 30.9 per cent, but employment decreased 51 per cent. The number of man-hours required in the industry has shown a pronounced decline of 64.1 per cent in the period, or from 158 to 49.6. In explanation of this it is seen that the output per man- hour has almost doubled, increasing from 81.4 to 156.5. The out-, put per wage earner has likewise increased, from 82.7 to 116.7, or 41 per cent. These figures reflecting the trend in the reduction of work- ers and man-hours, and the increase in output per worker and per man-hour, show the results of mechanization and modernization of the cigar industry. A large proportion of the operations of the industry, which were formerly performed by hand labor, are now being done by machines, aided by mechanical processes and more efficient plant operation. The use of machine technique and effi- ciency has greatly reduced the need for labor in the cigar indus- try. However, the'reduction in employment in the cigar industry has not been caused entirely by mechanization. According to a study made of this situation by W. D. Evans, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about one-third of the displacement was caused by machinery, the rest being due to the decrease in the volume of production. "About 47,400 wage earners were displaced from the cigar in- dustry during the period 1919-1955. Increased use of automatic GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF Tl CIGAR IINDSTRY IN THE U. S. 1 igar machines terminated the services of about 16,600 of the rage earners. Decrease in the total annual volume of product n part compensated for by a shortened work week, has result he displacement of abot, but probably somewhat fewer than, i0,600 wage .*earir."" In Tables 39.and 40 can be seen the internal revenue col sectionss from cigars and cigarettes over a period of years an )y states. The first of these tables shows total internal r renue collections from 1913-1938. There is a striking diffe e in the amounts collected from the cigars and cigarettes. In 5 ;he cigar revenue was the larger, but in 1958, while cigars )12,751,000 in revenue taxes, cigarettes paid$493,453,000.
cigarettee revenue has grown amazingly in this period. The in4
-ernal revenue paid by the cigar industry has declined 44 per int
betweenn 1913-1938, or fran (22,796,000 to $12,751,000. This$
lue both to a reduction in cigar output, and a shift to the 1 r
,rades of cigars, on which the revenue tax is much lower.
The second of the tables gives the internal revenue rece a
'rom cigars, according to the different states. Pennsylvania
jays the largest amount, $4,005,000, which is almost one-thir )f the total. Florida pays the next largest amount,$2,525,
)r 18 per cent of the total. New Jersey pays $1,855,000 or 1 er cent. New York, Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio each p nore than one-half million dollars in internal revenue taxes. It is believed that some information concerning the earn s ,f American cigar manufacturing companies will be of interest leaderss of this Report. Such figures show the results of opes ions .or these companies, and indicate the profitableness of cigar manufacturing. They will also serve as bases of comparison w the operating results of Tampa cigar companies. It was not p bible ;o include a large number of cigar companies in this tabulati so five of the most important ones in the industry were select (ost of these companies use the machine process, the American gar companyy being an exception in producing the bulk of its outpu land. They are reputed to be efficiently Operated. Tables 4 d L2 give the earnings of these companies over a period of year The first of these tables shows the earnings as a percent ,f net worth. This gives the return on invested capital, whioc is n excellent index of operating results. It is seen that no f he companies has suffered a loss since 1935. Two of these anies did not have any losses during this period, while two loss in only one year and the remaining one, losses in only o ears. The deficits of the American Cigar Company in 1930 an 931 were in the two years immediately preceding the removal ts plants from Tampa and Havana to Trenton. All but one of the companies had a return on capital exc ng 5 per cent in 1958, one of these making 8 per cent and on 2.3 per cent. Only one of the companies had unsatisfactory its of 1 per cent. The earnings of this company have decree ron 35.5 per cent in 1927 to 1 per cent in 1938, the cause f his trend being unknown. Two of the companies have had a ion in earnings franm the returns in 1927, but are still ea bove 5 per cent. The earnings of the two remaining companies re about on the level with those in 1927. The second of these ables gives the earnings per share of common stock of these c anies over a period of years. The earnings of these large cigar companies are in sharp rast with those of the Tampa hand plants, which are very much, Dwer. These are given in Table 77, Part VI of this Report. The record of earnings of these cigar companies seems to fnstrate that large, well-managed plants, with efficient meth 1. The Cigar Manufacturing Industry. 1956. W. D. Evana. Uni :ates Govermnt Printing Office. 3 42 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA and modern systems of manufacture, can prosper in the cigar mau- facturing business, even in depression years. As this survey has not been concerned primarily with the national cigar industry, but with the cigar industry of Tampa, it was not intended to go fully into the national situation. The in- formation given about the cigar industry of the United States has been for the purpose of facilitating a better understanding of the position of the Tampa plants in the entin industry, together with some of their Joint problems. Part IV DEVELOPMENT OF THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY 1 Early History in Key Woet. The production of cigars in Key West may be traced as back as 1831 when William H. Wall operated a factory employing t fifty workmen. Wall's factory was destroyed by fire in 18 Others were engaged in cigar manufacturing in the pe prior to 1868, but that year, marked by rebellion in Cuba nst Spanish rule, saw the Key West industry begin more than tw c- ades of growth. Development of cigar manufacture in Key required the presence of skilled Cuban cigarmakers. Many persons were among those forced to flee the Island of Cuba cause of political views or activities. Moreover, certain - ish manufacturers sought Key West because it offered great se- curity for property and life. The first cigar firm to leave the unstable conditions the Spanish colony in Cuba was that of Senor V. Martinez Ybor. e- cause he was suspected of opposition to the Spanish gove this factory operator moved to Key West in 1869 in search safety from depredations from Spanish volunteer troops.. - lishment of Ybor's factory in.Key West marked the founding Florida's clear Havana cigar industry. Eduardo Manrara was e a partner in the Key West firm. Afterwards, he became a leader in the Tampa cigar industry. The transfer of Ybor's factory operations from Havana Key West was followed by the establishment of cigar plants in K West by the following firms: Seidenburg and Company, E. H. to and Company, George W. Nichols, Ferdinand Hirsch Company, Ruy Lopez Company. For twenty-five years preceding 1894, Key West held t title of "Clear Havana Cigar Center of the United States." In t pe- riod, Key West cigars became widely known as a quality pr . After reaching a maximum of 100,000,000 cigars annually in period 1890-1894, the cigar output of this Florida island- began to decline. The downward trend was checked by a revi which saw the 100,000,000 mark again reached in 1911. 2 Establishment and Early Progress in Tampa. The way was prepared for an exodus of Key West factori1 to Tampa in 1886 when Ybor and Manrara considered removal of t r factory operations to Mobile, Galveston or New Orleans. Wh the offers of these Gulf cities were under consideration, Ybor met Ignacio Haya, another cigar manufacturer from New York,b was also looking for a good branch plant location. In turn the et Senor Don Gavino Gutierrez, a Spanish gentleman who was re ing to New York by water from a trip to Tampa. His mission to t village had been to investigate the possible location for a serv- ing factory to make food delicacies from tropical fruits. nor Gutierres had been impressed by the future possibilities of pa as a manufacturing center and in the course of conversation th Senors Haya and Ybor, he induced them to return with him an onsid- er the merits of that village as a location for their fact es. When the cigar manufacturers saw the proposed location they re impressed with its climatic and transportation advantages b were not satisfied with their offer from the Board of Trade. Th resi- dent of this organization in 1886 was Colonel W. B. Henders As the visiting manufacturers started to return home, Colonel person met and informed them that he was authorized to offer as a their concession a large area of local lands for the small sum of ,000. This offer included every other block in a strip of land in at is now Tampa Heights and the uptown district of Ybor City, alo Seventh Avenue to the Hillsborough River. This inducement proved sul cient- 43 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA ly attractive, and resulted in the removal of the cigar factories of these manufacturers to Tampa. The huge areas of land acquired for so small a sum were to become the foundation for two real estate organizations. These were the Ybor City Land and Development Company and the Sanchez and Haya interests. The former company incorporated in 1886 had as its officers: V. M. Ybor, president; Eduardo Manrara, vice- president; George T. Chamberlin, secretary; and Peter 0. Knight, attorney. The Ybor land company made extensive purchases in ad- dition to land first acquired as a subsidy to cigar manufacturing. The third factory to locate in Tampa was that of Lozano, Pen- day and Company, which started operation in January, 1888. In the following year, the Board of Trade used a cash bonus plus land donations of the Ybor City Land and DeVelopment Company to attract the R. Monne interests to Tampa. For a period of approximately ten years buildings for incoming cigar manufacturers were offered free of rent in exchange for a contract that they would employ not less than a stated number of workers and produce not less than a given quota of cigars. Immigration of Cuban cigarmakers from Key West and Havana followed the movement of Spanish factory operators to Tampa. Since Key West was the center of Cuban revolutionary activities, the strained relations between Spanish manufacturers and Cuban cigarmakers caused considerable difficulty. Added to this was the strife engendered by constantly recurring labor troubles. As Browne remarks: "Strikes, which seem to be a part of the ,igar manufacturing industry, were constantly occurring therein."'( After a costly strike at the Seidenberg factory in Key West in 1894, the operators refused to employ Cuban cigarmakers any longer and proceeded to obtain Spanish workers to replace them. An objective account of this episode states: "The unions believed that these men were being imported by the manufacturers for the sole purpose of breaking the power of labor organizations. They requested that such discrimination stop. To this demand the manufacturers paid no attention. In the end a particularly flagrant disregard of the feelings of the men precipitated a general strike, and in the riotous demonstrations which followed, several factories were wrecked and the city made untenable for Spanish worken."() Besides offering a haven of rest from the embroligio of rev- olutionary and labor strife, Tampa offered cigar manufacturers liberal inducements of land, factory buildings and cash subsidies. In the early eighteen-nineties, Colonel Hugh C. MoFarlane, the founder of West Tampa, was successful in establishing another cigar town in the vicinity of Tampa. The customary subsidies of land, buildings and money were used as a means of attracting cigar manufacturers to West Tampa. West Tampa plants were also granted an additional concession of free taxes for a stated period. An attempt was made about 1900 to develop a cigar production center at Port Tampa, with several plants located there as a nu- cleus. However, these efforts failed because of insufficient so- cial attractions for the Latin cigar workers, such as were to be found in Ybor City and West Tampa. The pioneer cigar factories coming to Tampa between 1886- 1905 are shown in Table 43. 1. Key West. the Old and the New, Browne, J.B., 1912. Page 126. Published by the Record Company, St. Augustine, Florida 2. Report of United States Immigration Commission, Vol.15, Page 186. Published by United States Government Printing Office, 1911. RECONIENDA TIONS FOR THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY 45 3 Business Organization in the Industry. The early oigar firm of Tampa drew heavily on the f gt of individual enterpriaers. The pioneering organizations prinipall proprietorships and partnerships. Whatever la capital eziated as compensated for by the willingness of citizens to aubsidise the establishment of new factories. founders o companies were in many eases cigarnakers who h - cumulated savings and aho possessed the ability to manager plants. Iaoh depended on availability of loans on tobacco. success in securing these loans arose chiefly from the confl e of bankers in the manufacturers' general worth as business The first attempt of large scale industry to enter the cle - vana business in Tampa arose when the American Tobacco C or "trust", sought to monopolize high-grade cigar manufao Before the stage was set for the trust proper, an imp t consolidation occurred which involved several Tampa concern The Havana-American Company was an independent corporation ized November 9, 1899, with a capital stock of$10,000,000, t
four-fifths of which was outstanding. The first Havana-Ame
Company wea formed by the combination of the following ten
stories:

Ybor-Naurara Co., Tampa.
Eugene Vallens and Co., Chicago and New York.
S. Hernsheim Bros. and Co.., New Orleans.
Seidenberg and Co., New York and Tampa.
Juliuas llinger and Co., Tampa.
D. L. Trujillo and 8ons, Key West.
Rosener, Arnold and Co., New York.
Horase R. Kelly and Co., New York.

In July, 1901 these ten factories were transferred to
American Cigar Company and by vote of the stockholders the -
American Company was dissolved on July 31, 1901. A new Ha
American Company was organized and the clear Havana business
the original company transferred to it. The officers in th -
pany were as follows: Isadore Hernsheim of New Orleans, pro ent;
Eduardo Manrara of Tampa, vice-president and general agent Tam-
pa; Eugene Valleot of Chicago, general manager.
In the years following 1901, the Tampa plants of the can
Cigar Company consisted of three clear Havana factories emp
about 1,000 workers. The factories were operated as J. Ill r
and Company, Ybor-Nanrara and Company and Seidenberg and C
Gradually these establishments came to be called the "trust -
tories."
Opposition to the allegedly monopolistic intentions of
American Tobacco subsidiary in Tampa arose not only from or zed
labor but also from independent manufacturers. The trust h -
cess to the economies of large-scale operation which served a
competitive advantage over the smaller firms. Moreover, the at
factories insisted on non-union employees.
Consolidation of weaker firas by the strong and absorpt of
old businesses whose leadership was gone has been a process rly
common to the. Tampa industry.
In 1919, the Consolidated Cigar Company, a concern in -
rated in Delaware, May 14, 1919, acquired the following con

E. M. Sobwartz and Co. New York
T. J.'Dunn and Co. New York
SJose Lovera and Co. Tampa
El Sidelo Cigar Co. Tampa
Samuel J. Davis and Co. Tampa
Lilies Cigar Co. Detroit

The Consolidated Cigar Company transferred its operate to
New York, Trenton, Philadelphia and several Pennsylvania to

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

The firm was operating twenty-six factories in that area in 1925.
Brands which were moved from Tampa to eastern factories included
Dutch Masters, The Harvester, 1E Sidelo and The Lovera. The oper-
ating results of the Consolidated Cigar Company from 1926 to 1939
were presented in Tables 41 and 42, Part III, Of this Report.
A noteworthy series of consolidations beginning in 1954 in-
volved first the absorption of the Sanchez and Haya pioneer brands
by Wengler and Mandell in 1934. In January, 1936 the Gradiaz-An-
nis Company absorbed Wengler and Mandell. These changes involved
the concentration of brands formerly produced by two other compa-
nies into the organization of Gradiaz-Annis. Plant capacity in
Tampa was thereby reduced but the individual plant capacity of the
consolidating firm became more fully utilized. Costs were further
lowered by the economies effected in purchases, sales and adver-
tising.
Recently the change of plant locations from Tampa to other
points has been a threat to the city's industry. In the past year,
Escanlente and Company has transferred all of its operations to
what was formerly a New Orleans branch factory. Much discussion
continues to center about the reasons American Cigar Company fac-
tories left Tampa in 1932. A number of factors responsible for
this shift will be discussed later in this section of the report.
For many years, Tampa's superiority as a center for fine ci-
gars has been widely acclaimed. Movement of thi American Cigar
Company's clear Havana factories to Trenton, New Jersey and the
growth of demand for cheap cigars and cigarettes as substitutes
for high grade cigars are factors which threaten Tampa's claim to
domination in clear Havana production.
Instead of restricting its production of high-grade cigars
to clear Havanas, the Tampa industry has witnessed the development
of the successful manufacture of quality cigars using Connecticut
shade-grown wrappers and Wisconsin binders with Havana and blended
long filler.
As it has developed, the Tampa cigar industry has been com-
posed of three main groups of persons:

(a) Those possessed of a knowledge of blending and.tobacco
buying. In most cases this has required a Spaniard or a Cuban ac-
quainted with the regions of Cuba which produce the desired to-
bacco.
(b) Those possessed of a knowledge of cigarmaking. From the
ranks of cigarmakers have been drawn the managers and owners of
most of the plants.
(c) Those specializing in-the marketing of cigars. Frequent-
ly, a member of the Hebrew race has been drawn into supervision of
the cigar firm's sales department.

The early cigar factories were principally all organized as
individual proprietorships or partnerships. In many ways these
firms have evolved as a series of family enterprises with members
of the controlling families inheriting a right to positions in
the business. The limited capital of small business firms was a
handicap preventing many cigar factories from attaining their most
economical size. Where both capital and enterprise were available,
the many "one-factory" organizations did not reach the maximum
economies possible in large scale purchases, advertising, research,
etc. Tampa manufacturers have attained selling economies through
the operation of selling offices in New York or Chicago.

4 Migration of Tampa Plants to Other Localities.

The history of the Spanish hand branch of the cigar industry
is marked by the easy transfer of factories to new locations.
Since the major capital requirement for. this type of factory is
for investment in tobacco, a variable item of boost, the location
depends to a large extent upon the availability of labor at prices

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY

which make production profitable. Over-rigid policies of t
unions have been a stimulus to the transfer of plants from com-
munity where it is difficult for new methods to be adopted
another where obstacles are less restrictive.
The cigar companies which have closed their Tampa plan and
moved to a new location, those which have consolidated wit, her
Tampa companies, and those which have ceased operations ent ly,
are shown in Table 44.
Migration of cigar companies from Tampa have been to r
Florida towns and cities as well as to New York, Hew Orleanr Tren-
ton and Passiac, New Jersey and other points. The most c y
asserted reason for these removals is unsatisfactory relati with
local unions. Attempts to install new sizes of cigars by manu-
facturer and the application of labor prices on the new siz con-
siderably above the competitive rates were the most frequent
scource of friction. In practically all cases the cost of oval
has not prevented the migrating firm from establishing sati ctory
earning power in the new location. In the case of the Amer n
Cigar Company, its experience in Tampa had been marked by o si-
tion not only of organized labor but also of small, indepen t
manufacturers. Moreover, in moving its clear Havana operate a
from Cuba in 1952, it was obvious that in order to attain m
economies from large-scale production, the inclusion of its pa
factories became necessary.
The absorption of the brands made by Sanchez and Haya, wab-
Davis and Wengler and Mandell by the Gradias-Annis Company
been mentioned. Other firms which closed during the past t years
include Eduardo Gonsalez and Company, Arguelles, Lopez and pany,
Nordacs Cigar Company, Tampa Cuba Cigar Company and Serrano os.
While the motive for consolidation was mainly reduction of r-
head costs through.increased volume, the chief reason for
factories ceasing to do business was the financial trouble tt
grew out of poor management, high costs of labor and increa
cost of materials.
Much popular interest has centered about the removal oh lants
from Tampa as well as the closing and consolidations. It been
estimated that nearly 4,000 persons formerly employed in the amps
industry were displaced by these movements.

5 Evolution of Employer-Employee Relations.

During the first ten years of the Tampa cigar industry, la-
tions between employers and their workers were comparatively ee
from difficulties. In 1886 an agreement had been entered i by
the citizens, workmen and manufacturers under which amicable et-
tlement of disputes was possible. The period of tranquilli as
relatively short as the same types of labor troubles which
existed in Key West soon appeared in Tampa. According to
Government survey made by the Immigration Commission of 191 the
Labor situation early developed as follows:

"Unions, international and local, representing every o pa-
tion known to the industry, singly and in groups, sprang in be-
ing as laborers increased in number. In time the manufac t
had to suffer not only for their own sins but for the jeal es
and strifes among the unions themselves. Under the leaders of
unscrupulous men, these bodies became more and more unreaso le
in their demands. Factories were often brought to a full a in
the busiest hours of the day, while a committee appointed o e
spur of the moment repaired to the office of the company to nd
an immediate adjustment of some fancied or real grievance.
arbitrary and powerful .did the unions become that they were en
successful in excluding the managers and owners from the ro in
their factories where the men were at work. Naturally stri ,
some of them very bitter and of long duration, were often
results of these conditions. As frugality is not a charact a-

48 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TA PA, FLORIDA

tic of the Cuban cigarmakers, they were frequently reduced to dire
straits in the course of a long strike, and the burden of feeding
and caring for them fell upon the citizens of Tampa.

Although the International Cigarmakers' Union was formed na-
tionally in 18e4, it was unable to manifest any important strength
in Tampa until after the general strike of 1901. From 1886 until
1900 the dominant labor organization wap one brought over from
Cuba--La Reslstencia Society. During the troubles of the Spanish
manufacturers and Cuban workers arising from sympathy with oppos-
ing sides in the struggle for Cuban independence, La Resistenoia
was not very prominent.
The Spanisn-American War was decla ed in 1898 and Tampa be-
came the port of embarkation for troops sent to Cuba. During the
summer of 1898, there were as many as 50,000 United States troops
encamped in and around Tampa. The city became the headquarters of
the Cuban revolutionists. Workers in the cigar factories made
frequent cash contributions to the cause of Cuban independence.
Workers in one factory voted to donate 4 rifle each to the Cuban
cause.
Some of the Spanish manufacturers who.were suspected of spy
plots by their suspicious.workers, and in consequence roughly
treated, considered leaving the cigar business. The offer of full
protection for their lives and property came at an opportune time
from Governor H. L. Mitchell. The Governor promised to do all in
his power to protect the manufacturers and if necessary to use the
state troops for this purpose.
In one instance, the Centro Espanol, local Spanish club, was
seized by United States troops. Investigation proved that a false
report originating with an alleged Cuban committee had reached the
United States Secret Service and that the Centro Espanol was not
in fact "a nest of spies" nor a secret storage place for arms, am-
munition and deadly explosives.
Throughout the brief period of warfare with Spain, business
in the cigar industry remained good. Shortages of tobacco existed
to some extent but the manufacturers had proteOted their business
by the importation of large stores of Cuban tobacco. These imports
came in the spring of 1896 as the result of an edict by General
Weyler, of the Spanish Army in Cuba, prohibiting exportation of
tobacco after.the expiration of a ten day period. It is reported
that two steamers belonging to Henry B. Plant were sent to Havana
and returned fully loaded with Cuban to acco before the time limit
expired.
The first general strike in the Tampa cigar industry was the
culmination of competition among a small but growing membership
in the International Cigarmakers' Union and La Resistencia Soci-
ety. Its immediate cause grew out of demands by La Resistenoia
that Cuesta-Rey and Company abolish its branch factory at Jackson-
ville. Refusal of this company to discontinue its branch was fol-
lowed by a walkout of members of La Resistencia from the Cuesta-
Rey factory. International Union members refused to quit work;
instead they kept their benches and continued to make cigars. La
Resistencia countered by demanding that unless the manufacturers
agreed to put International members out of their plants, La Resis-
tencia would declare a general strike and at the same time. demand
an increase of four dollars per M on all cigars made.
In the general strike which followed, a committee composed
of the citizens of Tampa, on August 6, 1901, caused the arrest of
sixteen leaders of La Resistencia. They were guarded until mid-
night when they were placed aboard an unknown vessel in Tampa Bay
and deported to Central America. Membprs of the Cigarmakers' In-
ternational Union did not participate in the deporting activities.

1. Report of United States Immigratio Commission, Vol. 15,
Page 226-7, 1911. United States Goyernient Printing Office.

RBCOMMNNDATIONS PFO THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY 49

In a report of an Inter2tiogl Union oganizer sent t
during the strike, it wa stated that
*aroe ar mlr good men in la sesistenoia, but they -
tunately go with the leaders, wo bile they my not intend
simply MlM trouble fif theaelves, the oigarmkers and the 1-
ness men in gIn eral"*l
Although the faotorie resumed work with a remnant fo the
official period of the strike continued fo some four onth til
xoveber 26 1901. That the International Union proceeded ben-
efit from teL lost strike o ts rival is indicated by the
of membership of local union 8 6" from twenty-four members
1898 to 780 in 1905.
During the strike of 1901, La Resietenota asked the Ha
members of ULiga, the Onban eiogarars' union, for a atr
benefit fund to be derived from contributions of 10 per 0n
their wages. his request as rejected.
The strike ge the Italians an opportunity to enter
cigaraker' tra d. Tap received a anber of Italian at
during the. eigteen@-nneties after large nubers of that na 1-
ity has been oompelld to leave the city of lew Orleans fol g
the assassination of the chief of police. Practically all
these people ere Sioilans.
On their arrival in TYaa, the Italians sought empl in
the cigar fastories. The unions, domiated by Spaniards -
bans, refused to adkit them as apprentices but they accept
rougher Jobs and in spite of every opposition learned to I-
gars. 2hir opportunity ame in the 1901 strike to take th
places of a .tres. MNa the conflict was settled and the a
threatened to retn and oust the from their jobs, the I a
bought their paeeo by bribing the foreman.
The second g ral strike in TIapa cigar factories oo
June 25, 1910, and cont#ied until January 26, 1911. It wa n-
ducted by the 01garmakers' International Union.
The abuse of this strike y be traded to the nonccopl
of certain anntfetpures with the equalization of prices -n 0.
This plan of equalisation originated a a means of establi
uniformity of lbor prices amog the foatories of Tapa. It a
designed to heek the practice of cutting wage rates, which
become a method of fair competition among the cigar firms.
scale of prices hlich wa finally adopted, together with the e
as to sizes and sapes of egars has popularly beooe known ithe
Oartabon.
Prior to the strike, the Cigarmakere' International Uni be-
gan a mebership campaign Retaliation by the manufacturers
when some S0 per oent of the selectors and 2 per cent of t l-
garakes were looked oat of the factories. meanobile a
hip campaign was waged successfully in thirty-seven faetoi be-
longing to the manufacturers association. It is. reported
the union still sought to avoid a strike by seekingg interven
through the Board of Trade to check the inipient conflict.
Board of Trade hesitated to oat at that tie. A strike vote
taken with positive results and the strike began.
Bdtwn Stanley, ho was then oorrepondl secretary of
Joint Advisy Board of the unions reported through the Ci
makers' Joural that the following demas were made by the
strikers:
(a) Recognition of the union;
(b) Complianoe with the equalization of prices of 1910.
Following the murder of Z. -asterling, a bookkeeper,
the Bustillo faetoy in West TaIpa, local citizens becm as d
and an unknown op of lynchers took the lives of two Itali
who were allegedly guilty o the crime. In addition, e

i. Cigarakers' Official Journal; October 15, 1901.

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

the cigarmakers' unions were seized by officers of the law in an
effort to prove that prominent strike leaders were accessories to
the murder of the factory bookkeeper. Members of the Joint Advi-
sory Board of the unions were temporarily placed in jail pending
the investigation.
The conflict was officially ended on January 26, 1911. Mem-
bers of five unions voted a secret ballot. As a result, 1,100
voted to return to work, and sixty-six voted against it. The cause
for termination of the strike was given as the lack of funds, the
Joint Advisory Board being in debt for $13,000 paid out in strike relief. The next general strike occurred on April 14, 1920. The questions involved in the strike concerned the right of the employ ers to operate an open shop and to maintain the continued discharge of union "shop collectors" who were dismissed in December, 1919. It was in this month that the independent manufacturers organized in favor of the open shop. In the report of the impending strike by the Morning Tribune of April 14, 1920, the following account is given: "With issuance of the strike order, 7,613 union cigarmakers will quit work, automatically throwing out of work another 800 non-union men scattered throughout the hundred or more factories. Others crafts will be affected, more than 400 pickers and packers, 1,500 dependientes, office clerks and others, and several hundred strippers and binders, etc., being expected to join the strike which will throw out between 11,000 and 13,000 workers."~1l As the strike was declared, a rival organization, the Torce- dores Society appeared on the scene, proclaiming an open shop. Striking International Union members charged that the Torcedores was merely a group of strike breakers originating with the employ- ers. The truth of this charge may be questioned. It is stated that Torcedores claimed a membership of 1,800 while it actually had only about two hundred. The extended strike of 1920 seriously crippled local cigar production. The total output declined 53 per cent from the volume of production in 1919. This strike was a costly one for the Tampa cigar manufacturers as many of the plants lost business never to be regained. The unsatisfactory condition of many of the Tampa plants today can be traced to the loss of customers and markets in 1920. A few manufacturers sought relief by establishing branch factories outside Tampa, several going to Punta Gorda and Fort Myers. The local labor supply was reduced slightly by the shift of workers to other locations. The strike imposed heavy financial burdens on both employers and the International Union. The treasury of the International Union was drained of more than a million dollars in strike bene- fits. Each striking member was supposed to receive a benefit of$5 per week from the union, but it is alleged that many workers
received several benefits each week. In order to pay these bene-
fits, hundreds of thousands of dollars in voluntary contributions
had to be added to accumulated funds of the union.
A heavy decline in commodity prices occurring during the pe-
riod of the strike brought drastic losses on inventories held in
factories and warehouses. This fact, together with heavy increases
in overhead costs per unit of output, caused disastrous losses for
the manufacturers. Subsequent to the strike settlement, two local
firms of long standing closed, selling their brands to others.
These were F. Lozano, Son and Company, which leased its plant to
Corral, Wodiska y Co. and Francisco Arango and Co., which sold
its brands to Sam Davis, of Schwab-Davis and Company.
An interesting old custom in the cigar factories of Tampa was

1. Tampa Morning Tribune, April 14, 1920.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY 51

that of the "readers." These readers were hired by the wor
to read novels and other literature during working hours.
were taken out of the factories in 1920, and put back in 19 un-
der an arrangement Whereby the reading material had to be p ed
on by a committee of cigar workers. It was claimed that ra
material and literature offensive to the women in the plant a
frequently included. In 1953 the custom of the readers in
plants was finally abolished.

6 Organization of Bnployers and Employees.
An organization of Tampa manufacturing plants known as ie
Tampa Cigar Manufacturers' Association has existed since 19
This association was formed for the purpose of cooperation ad-
vertising and public relations, seeking of economical frei
rates, and group handling of labor relations. Its function pro-
viding a united group for negotiation of wage contracts and e
handling of labor disputes is its present main Justificatio It
is planned to realize other objectives in the future. The o-
ciation maintains an office, with a full-time secretary, in ch
records pertaining to the Tampa cigar industry are kept.. Mr. an-
cis M. Sack is the present secretary of the Association.
During the past ten years presidents of the Cigar a
turers' Association included the following: Jose Arango, 19
1930; Moses Bustillo, 1951-1932; A. L. Cuesta, Jr., 1953-19
Antonio Santaella, 1956-1937; Jose Perez, 1958-1939.
The International Cigarmakers' Union has been the domi
labor organization in the cigar industry since 1901. Prior
that time it had a small organization at Tampa and Key West
most of the workers in both cities preferred local unions.
power of La Resistenoia was broken in the strike of 1901.
The national organization of the Cigarnakers' Union is
filiated with the American Federation of Labor. National o ces
are maintained in Washington, D. C., Mr. R. E. Van Horn bei e
present national president. Since the majority of its total -
bers reside in Tampa, a personal representative of Mr. Van
is maintained in this city. At the present time, Mr. Charle
Norona serves in this capacity.
Seven local unions of the International Cigarmakers' Un a
are located at Tampa. These include the following:

#SS36 0garakers #494 Factory Employees clerksf
#462 Cigaralters #496 Cigarmakers
#474 Packers #500 Cigarmakers
#493 Selectors

The local unions of Tampa are governed by an executive y
of the unions known as the Joint Advisory Board. Headquarters f
this board are maintained at the Labor Temple, Ybor City. E. ed
members are assessed dues of #1.00 per month, while unemploy
members pay nominal dues of 10 cents per month. Since a olo
shop is part of the union contracts of 1938 and 1939, each c r
worker must remain in good standing with the union in order .be
employed.
The present umemberahip in the Tampa cigar unions is 7,6
This is considerably less than the membership in the 1920's. *
1923 there were tl,659 members in the local,cigar unions.
A desOription of the organization for collective bargal
and settlement of disputes in the Tampa cigar industry is as
follows: .

(a) Organization for settlement of minor disputes in tho
Plants.

As provided by the agreement signed August 25, 1939, wh
expires June 30, 1941, disputes will be considered as they e
in the individual plants. Whenever workers have grievances
are reported to the union delegate "shop collector" in each t.

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLOBIDA

Thereupon the shop collector seeks to remedy the complaint by
taking the matter into negotiation with the employer. In case
settlement cannot be effected between the shop collector.and em-
ployer, the affair is referred to the two Joint Advisory Boards
of the unions and employers.
(b) Organization for negotiation of the settlement of dis-
putes of a general nature, although this might include the settle-
ment of minor disputes which cannot be settled in the individual
plants. ,

Meetings of the two Joint Advisory Boards negotiate the set-
tlement of these general issues, and unsettled plant controversies.
As already explained, the Joint Advisory Board of the unions
represents seven unions. During the summer of 1939, this Board
was composed of approximately twenty-eight members. Each local
union was represented by a minimum of three delegates for the
first 500 members with one additional member allowed for each sub-
sequent 500, or fraction thereof as large as 200. Representatives
are elected annually in the periodic elections held in the Labor
Temple.
The Joint Advisory Committee of the Cigar.Manufacturers'
Association is appointed to deal with the Union Committee selected
from the Joint Advisory Board.
In the summer of 1939, this employers' committee included
the following: Armando Rodriguez, chairman; Francisco Gonzalez,
John Levy, Jose Colemanares, Luis Lopez, A. Gonzalez, Mariano
Alvarez and Anthony Florez.

(c) Organization for equalization of labor prices for various
sizes and shapes of cigars manufactured.

Uniformity of labor rates between the Tampa plants is governed
by a price scale organized according to the various sizes and
shapes. As has been stated, this price list of some 200 differ-
ent sizes and shapes is known as the Cartabon. It represents a
set of labor prices which are rarely changed and then by means of
what amounts to blanket increases and decreases of the rates. New
sizes and shapes can be adopted under the supervision of the
nivelating or equalization committee. This group is composed of
six employers and six employees. Any manufacturer who violates
the rules and regulations established in the Cartabon is subject
to investigation and possible penalty imposed by this equaliza-
tion committee. In the summer of 1939, the committee included:
Employers, Armando Rodriguez, chairman; Francisco Gonzales, Jose
Colemanares, A. Gonzalez, A. Bustillo and John Levy. Employees,
Luis Diaz, President; Ramon Diaz, Manuel M. Menendez, Antonio
Fuegos, Lazzaro Alonso, Tony Alfano.
(d) Organization for negotiating new wage agreements.

As the date approaches for the expiration of a wage agreement
between the Cigar Manufacturers' Association and the locals of the
International Cigarmakers' Union, negotiations begin for a new
contract. The employers' labor relations committee meets with a
group selected from the Joint Advisory Board of the cigar unions
by the Board's president. The negotiations are assisted by ser-
vices of local attorneys for the Manufacturers' Association and
the International Cigarmakers' Union. At the'present time Mr.
Ray C. Brown is attorney for the Manufacturersl Association, while
Mr. 0. C. Maxwell and Mr. L. W. Cobbey represent the unions. As
soon as a contract is signed by both groups of representatives,
it is submitted to the Manufacturers' Association and to a mass
meeting of the cigar unions for a vote of approval. If a majority
of each group approves, the new contract goes into effect for the
period stipulated.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY

(e) Provisions for arbitration.

If a dispute cannot be composed through negotiations o lthe
Joint Advisory Boards of employers and employees, the next- Mort
is settlement under the Constitution of the International C r-
makers Union. As a matter of practice questions of collect re
bargaining which remain unsettled for a stated period of ti are
to be handled according to provisions of the union constitute n.
Thus, they may be submitted to arbitration by a disinterest third
party. The United States Department of Labor through its C il-
iation Service has been called on in several instances to s re as
arbitrator on questions pertaining to the cigar industry.

7 Recent Developments in Employer-Bmployee Relations. A

Following the adoption of the National Recovery Act in 33
the right of collective bargaining was granted organized la un-
der provisions of Section 7-a. This prompted the Internatio
Cigarmakers' Union to send Mr. R. E. Van Horn to Tampa to c er
with manufacturers on the question of entering a voluntary Ide
agreement with their organization.
After a lengthy period of discussion, the contract of em-
ber, 1933 was entered into. When the cigar manufacturers' a e
under NRA became effective the workers petitioned the manuft
turers for a 20 per cent increase in wages for Spanish hand
an increase of 30 per cent for mold made cigars. In the sa pe-
tition was included a demand that the nivelating committee re-
stored, together with the rules and regulations governing
group of equalization comnitteemen. The nivelating system
been discontinued in 1930, as the scale of prices proved to- igid
and consequently the manufacturers were unable to meet comp' tion
in offering new sizes and shapes. Heavy pressure from the Lon
brought the nivelating concession from the manufacturers.
From the recognition of the union in 1933 until the pr nt
day there have evolved consistent complaints from the emplo s
that union regulations did not permit them to introduce rea
new sizes and shapes or to experiment with competitive meth
In 1935 this problem was advanced by the manufacturers a
subject for arbitration. The manufacturers appointed Mr. E que
Pendas as their member of a three man arbitration board whi the
workers* selection was Mr. Jose Martinez. These two were t e-
lect a local impartial chairman. When an agreement had not en
reached as to the third member, despite some eight weeks of ner-
ences, the United States Department of Labor was asked to y
such a chairman. Mr. Francis J. Haas was sent in that capa y.
His decision of October, 1935 permitted the team work with er-
man bunch machines and suction tables to be used in Tampa, re-
quired wages under the competitive method to be the same as e
hand rates established in the Cartabon for 1934. Naturally, is
offered small inducement to the employers to install the near s-
tan, and little effort was made to do so at that time.
In 1936, the three-year contract between the local uni
and employers terminated. Prior to its formal ending disloy ac-
tivities were discovered among sixteen members of the Inter ional
Union by Mr. R. E. Van Horn, president of the International Car-
makers' Union. In order to prevent their shifting to the C. .,
a court injunction was obtained ordering them to cease their. -
tivities. The disloyal members were suspended. Five of the
leaders were denied the right to hold offices for a year whii
eleven were later restored to unqualified membership.
After this, Mr. Van Horn asked the manufacturers for mo
control over union members. As a means to that end, he requted
that "preferential union employment" be written into the ne wage
contract. Members of the Cigar Manufacturers' Association ylIded
t, this persuasion. Later, "preferential union employment"
ii erpreted by the Department of Labor as meaning virtually &

J

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

closed shop. Thus in the 1938 contract, a clause formally holding
the closed shop existent in Tampa was the final step in a series
towards ending the open shop.
The competitive system of cigar manufacture, which has been
explained in previous sections of this Report,,has continued to
claim a large share of recent bargaining controversies between lo-
cal unions and employers. In the formulation ef a wage contract
in July, 1937, the question of competitive systems was aain ad-
vanced for an arbitration as provided by the Ilternational Union
Constitution. The question was whether competitive methods should
be adopted in the manufacture of clear Havana and shade mold ci-
gars similar to methods currently employed in northern factories,
and the sizes and prices to be paid if the competitive system
were introduced. Mr. Carl R. Sceddler, United-States Department
of Labor representative, was sent to Tampa in january, 1938, to
serve in the arbitration. In the preliminary hearings it was
clearly established from the testimony of the workers and employ-
ers that the competitive system should be permitted to be used in
Tampa as in the north, that when using this system employers should
furnish the same quality materials as northern factories, and that
Tampa manufacturers should accept the same elate of workmanship as
northern plants. In the decision of Arbitratoe Schedler, the
prices and sizes of cigars under the competitive method were es-
tablished, being the same as those used in the northern competi-
tive area. The wide differential between shade and Havana mold
prices was permitted to remain as provided for in the existing
labor contract.
Following the Schedler Award, granting the right of Tampa
cigar companies to use the competitive system, several manufac-
turers attempted to install it in their plants As they failed to
receive .the cooperation of their workers with the new system,
these attempts were abandoned. N'
In applying the rights granted under the Arbitration award
of 1938 several questions of interpretation hale appeared. What
constitutes competitive methods as used in the north? How should
standards of tobacco quality be drawn so as to permit coaparaise
of tobacco used in Tampa with that in the north
The labor contract of August 25, 1959, effective through
June 30, 1941, between the unions and Cigar Matifacturers' Asso-
ciation recognizes the right of any manufacturer "to introduce
and use any method or methods, system or systems, or parts there-
of, pertaining to any department of the factory." This provision
further requires that a description of the newssystem of production
that is desired shall be filed with the Joint advisoryy Board of
the unions and with the International Cigarmakrs' president or
his representative.. Thereupon, the Joint Advisory Board and. the
labor committee of the Cigar Association shall meet for the estab-
lishment of a price or wage scale on the new system. If the nego-
tiating parties are unable to agree within five working days frm
the date of filing a description of the new system or if eithe-
side refuses to negotiate further, a wage sca4e shall be estab-
lished by an arbitrator to be forth-with.appoited by the Conoil-
iation Division of the United States Departent of Labor."
The contract states that the unions and te employers have
not yet reached an agreement on the wage soaleifor ompetitis
systems of manufacturing cigars as now used. Provision is mAd
that this dispute shall be composed-IE the manner already deasribe
namely, through negotiation within a limited time of five working
days after which arbitration shall be resorted to.

Prt V

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY TO TAMPA V
SI

1 Effect of the Digar Industry on the Growth of Tampa.

The coming of cigar manufacture in 1866 to the village
Tampa meant the development of a growing town from which w
emerge a modern city
Before the first oigar factory was established, the e
population of Tampa was 2,000 persons. Most of the people
gaged in trading, railroad construction and transportation,
wise and foreign shipping. Stimulus from a new industry waf
felt. By 1889 the local population had increased to over 19
In a span of several years leading up to this date the annut
ume of cigar production had grown to 20,000,000.
Through the ensuing two decades, the cigar industry pr
the nucleus for many Important developments connected with
prosperous growth of Tampa.
That the cigar industry was a decisive factor in Tampa
growth is indicated in the 1910 report of a United States
ment commission studying Immigration and its relation to th,
industry.. A statement from the report follows:
"The industry has been instrumental in adding large nu
to the population of the city and has been by far its great
distributor of wealth. The value of cigars manufactured inn
year 1908 was $17,175,000. 10,500 employees received an av weekly payroll of$200,000 or 75 per cent of the total payr
of the city." (1)
The prosperity of the Tampa cigar industry in 1910 was:
cent to cause an organizer for the International Cigar Wor
Union to report that seventy-five manufacturers were operate
locally with 6,000 members of the union.
"Tampa for the past five weeks has averaged shipment o
a million a day. One week the shipment was 7,120,000 cigars
The United States Immigration Commission's study of ci
ployees in the Tampa area provides. interesting data as to
bar of workers employed in 1910. According to this source
were employed in the cigar factories of Tampa in this year
of 9,858 workers, of whom 8,065 were men and 1,795 women.
growth in the number of cigar workers in Tampa continued co
ly up to the peak' year of cigar production in 1929.
Table 45 shows the growth of population in Tampa during
period 1900 to 1845, compared with the growth in cigar prod
for the same years. The total cigar production for 1900 wa
147,848,000 compared with a total of 311,345,000 in 1935.
ulation of Tampa was 15,859 in 1900 and 100,151 in 1935. S
1900 cigar.production has doubled, while the population of
has expanded more than six-fold. The peak year representing
record cigar production in the history of Tampa was in 1929
504,753,000 cigars were made. The population has remained
mately stable since 199 while production in the cigar ind
declined. Bbth conditions were partly the result of the bu
depression, and future years may see a change in this trend
decline in cigar production in Tampa since 1929 is part of
ral tendeiAeyas production in the entire industry has been
ing since 1920. In the preceding period of growth, 1886 -
the cigar industry of Tampa had been prosperous. Cigars pr<

1. Report of Imnigration Commission, 1911. Published by
United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
2. CIgazmkera' Official Journal, January 15, 1910, WashinL

a

mated
re en-
oast-
soon
DO0.
vol-

ided
s

early
Brn-
aigar

ers

be
age

affi-
rs'

r

P em-
num-
Dre
total
Ie
Istent-

the
;ion

I pop-
as
Ipa
he
ken
)roxi-
ry has
less
The
gene--
slin-
19,
iced

In.

56 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, PLOlIDA

in Tampa were noted throughout the United State fas quality cigas.
The period of decline, 199 1959, has been ma*ed also by a sift
to cheaper cigars which helped to affect advers4y the earnings of
the industry. A full discussion of this shift 1 iproduction is
presented in Part VI of this Report.
Despite the decline and unsatisfactory conditions since 1969
the cigar industry still remains the major aeon ic activity 1~\
Tampa. However, it is no longer"the only import nt Indstry -i
the city. Since 1920 there has been a growth o other types of
business activity at Tampa, wh h has tended to Lessen the depaen
dence on cigar manufacture. In 1930 the United states Census
showed 26 per cent of the workers of Tampa engaged in cigar fac-
tories, as compared with 56.2 per cent in 1910.
2 Importation of TObacco From Cuba.
A large quantity of Cuban tobacco is impor ed annually via
the.Peninsular and Occidental steamship line fr n Havana to Port
Tampa for use 'of the Tampa cigar industry.
Table 46 shows the total amounts of tobacco imported into t3s
United States from Cuba. In the peak year of te Tampa cigar as.
try, 1929, a total of-6,609,000 pounds was impo ted through Ta~e,
This represented 27 per cent of the total unmanfactured Cuban to-
bacco coming into the United States. In 1938 a'total of ,754,000
pounds of Cuban tobacco was received at Tampa, ihich was 29 per
cent of the total imported Cuban'tobacco.
The appraised value of tobacco imported frn Cuba as reportN
by the Tampa Office of the United States Customt shows a decllnw
from )5,954,000 in 1929 to a low point of$l,92,000 in 1933. Slot then it has increased to$2,720,000 in 1938. Te average value pe
pound reached a high of $0.90 in 1929 after whih there was a deG cline to a value of$0.57 per pound in 1955. T*e present value Ver
pound is $0.68. Prom the early history of foreign trade in Tampa tobacco has been the most important commodity import. In 534, tobacco made up 17 per cent of the imports of all the ports In hPorida, and practically all of thia commodity came in through Tampa. In 1990, 1910, 1900 and 1890 the value of tobacco import at Tampa has re- mained several times the value of the import nt in importance. Table 47 shows the distribution of tobacco imported thbroa Tampa into the classifications used by customs ppraisers at the United States Customs House. "Pull wrapper" e 'rs to bales of tobacco containing over 55 per cent wrapper lerea while peroent- age wrapper" is the portion of wrapper which i' present in a bale of tobacco containing less than 55 per cent Wr per leaves. "rn- stemmed filler" refers to tobacco suitable fon 1akin o filled cigars and from which stems have not been remod or stripped ' If the stems had been removed in Cuba, the tobmoco would be eas- sified as stemmed filler". *Sorap filler'" onaiets of leave not suitable for making long filler cigars. PFt of the scrap ay consist of tobacco purchased for short filler dgars or of euttiag obtained as a by-product in the manufacture of gIigh grade ciga According to an analysis of this table, the to quanttities f wrapper imports have increased from :.2 per cet of the total to- bacco imports in 1929 to 3.8 per cent in 1938.. This inoreaseba I the proportion of wrapper imports to filler receipts is parallled by a reduction in the total number of cigars oie in the Tamp* district and an increasing proportion of production in the lo6ew class of -cigars. On the cheaper cigars it has ,been necessary to use lower grade wrappers or a larger, proportioA of each bale as wrapper. An analysis of these production trends is contained i. other sections of this Report. A provision of the customs act relating t@ the duties on '.a- ported tobacco is that if as much as 35 per celt of the tobaeoo -in any bale is classified as wrapper tobacoo,the e ole bale is aasiak at the rate for wrapper tobacco. As was stated'in Part II, a balb of tobacco weighs about eighty pounds. Inasmuch as the import BE AnPII r 41 TIMCIfItlNagSInr TSAPA 87 rate for wrapped tebaem is$1.80 p62 nor overr ftur t aa
high as th afto hW filler tobaeco, 0.aB, this appears t a
drastic proviTion in the law. thu, i 40 per oent of a
were classified a wrapped tobaeoo by the appralaeer th t
er would have to pay 100 per eant pper duty the wle
This has resulted Ia 'm e *XOurve duties being paid, and
been the 8o00M Of Muir ootlaints.
The menufaetOrae of Tampe have objected to the inc
percentage of leave classified as wappers. They contend
the leaves used a wappere fop 5 eent eigars are not al
wrappers and that ocurmoial wrapper used only in the
of higher grade &1ars abou2 be olaosIfied as wrapper tob
United Stata nesi to offeoials at Tapg point out in rep
this objection that pragraph 608 of the Triff Act of 1
fines the toem wfappei tobacco" as follow:

"Tho te 'wrpper tobacco' am used in this title at
quality o leaf tobacco *ioh has the rquisite color, ,
and burn, 2ad 1t of 'uftcieont lsie for eigar wrapped. 1a

Other problem met with In oomection with claeeafioa
of Cuban toboo have to do with the methods of appraisal
assessment of duties ad the tendency of this olac ifiati
vary widely as between Mndividual o t inspectors. When p-
per and filler leaves ae mixed in shient, a custcBs a
needs to la eot all the leaves in a bale for an accurate is-
al. Aoeally, he has tiM to examine only a tow of the 16
leaves the bale eontalna. OAeo have been frnd of vlarat In
the opinion of eoetoms appeaaer* ast tthe percentage of
pers found in a bale. Ia one instance, ftao different ap
found 35 per ent, 60 per oont, 75 per dent and 96 per event
the proportion of wrapper in the uamu bale. Under the adi
tration of the extating law, ranufaet ndve mknow in ad
what their duties will be, as that depenas on the ldi
judgment of the a raitser in the custom werviet as to the
centage of wrapp ad iller present Because the wrapper
subject t6 over four tlms. the duty of filer, the fianncla
den of aiselaloetl latioa is costly.
Tables 48 adA 49 show the general tariff rate on toba
imports and the rates on Cuban tobaooo as modified by treat
and trade agreemmti. Since 1906 Cuban tradewith the Unit
States lta been object to a preferential rate 90 per cent
than imoprts frc other foreign countries. Since 1955,
tariff redotiena have coar as a result of the Trade Age
Program. 8uah duty reductions are exemplified by the Cuban
Agreement In effect fru Septembe 1954 to Marh, 1936 and
Netherlands t ade Agreement of Z .M As an apication of
unconditional most-favored-nation policy now being followed
the Unitedb tate, the reductions granted the Nettherlands
matra aad Jva wrapper were automatioall extended to inl
Cuban wrapper tobacco. An can be seen from Table 49, the t
duties p pount on tobacco Im~aorted from Cuba are: stem
wrapped, .o*, f united wrapper, l1.90, steed filler, ,
unsteomd fiule and secap, 90.B.

3 Advantages of Vampa Por Cigar MNanufacturing.
The ftwge of tebspeature ad humidity rat Tampa is quite
lar to that at May lest and Havana. In oider to work toba 6t-
isfactorily the average temperature must not be too low or high

Act raph 808. United States Gove

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIA4

Extremes of high and low humidity are equally u desirable. In the
Tampa district climatic conditions are such thaair-conditioning
of hand factories is unnecessary. In northern ldtories the air-
conditioning is essential, requiring an added vestment and ex-
penditure. Sufficient experimentation with air-onditioning in
Tampa has not been made to provide a more detailed analysis. How-
ever, it is contended by many manufacturers that air-conditioning
will be needed in Tampa for machine production if mechanization
proceeds far. Because of Tampa's..suitable climate some northern ci-
gar companies have their Ouban tobacco shipped to this city instead
of New York, and stored pending the need for it,
A representative of the United States weather bureau reports:
"At Tampa the average temperature range fri the coldest to
the warmest month is only 20 degrees whereas tho range is 44 de-
grees at Boston, 48 degrees at Chicago and 60 degrees at St.
Paul."(1)

A combination of railroads, 'truck lines, steamehip lines and
airlines makes economical and rapid transportation available from
Tampa to all parts of North America and the Carbbean. The un-
manufactured tobacco can be brought in easily fom Cuba and the
finished cigars distributed throughout the Unitqd States. From
the standpoint of transportation facilities, the cigar industry
is more strategically located for manufacture aqd distribution
at Tampa than at Havana or Key West.
Tampa has an advantage in a cost of living4 which is much.
lower than in northern producing centers. BecaUse of this, wages
in Tampa have a greater purchasing power than iS the north. Money
wages in Tampa might be lower than in the north,but real wages are
higher.
The willingness of Cuban cigarmakers to t rsfeor to Tampa-fron
Cuba and Key West was necessary for the establilbment of the cigar
industry at the former place. Emigration was e courage by the
construction of attractive communities, first at Ybor City and
later in West Tampa., Attempts were made to start a third cigar
production center at Port Tampa, but these failed chiefly because
of lack of clubs and amusement facilities, which have made up the
social life of the Latin workers. There has been an ample supply
of cigarmakers in Tampa ever since the early development of the
industry.
With the passage of the Morrison Act of 1843, a differential
for the importation of unmanufactured tobacco oter the importation
of an equal weight of finished cigars was made, o as to favor the
American manufacture of Havana cigars. This differential has
continued to encourage the importation of unmantfactured tobacco
and to discourage the importation of cigars. The rates of the
tariff duties on unmanufactured tobacco have been given in this
section of the Report.
The citizens of Tampa invested in the cigar industry as a
means of speeding up the economic development of the city. Subsi-
dies of cash, land and buildings were offered to plants which came
to Tampa. Citizens of Tampa, business men, land and development
companies and other interested groups helped to furnish the capital
for the companies and get them started. For their part the cigar
manufacturers contracted to produce a given quantity of cigars and
employ a stipulated number of persons. This agreement was designed
.to insure the maintenance of a payroll which wokid strengthen
purchasing power in the city.
For example, in the case of locating M. Stachelberg and Com-
pany in Tampa in 1902, the factory site was donated and the cit-
izens subscribed to $10,000 in capital .stock. -This firm built a 1. Comment on the Climate of Tampa by W. W. Talbott, United States Weather Bureau Office, Tampa, Florida Chamber of Commerce Bulletin, 1939. THE INF@It OF U EE CIGOFTORMAR JINSI TW NPA factory ooIst~glla u400.O d.1 to 1M y ajsO Iefl Today tbe sMue e aaang he ooirum 2iryet Ua maintenance of this lallty as a p snmmti ci. r center. in- ment of euab a gmtito wil rquien the wmt o:aerel at to three faotoes oesh a aeoaleoaote apad ciil in their . The social : oblm irs oo4sa ed with tad* -union po the larger portion of Tampals tr7 inw a a elosmd p agreement with the muiMa.e s ia tse of atso other a center In t ihe ite Statse.. Znsofar as mpa e un. cise a great intlWa oe 1 Re0 O rate they hqbd a weapo can be uaed to itajuq I a a aer to tL to the tari. unions are to help build a prosperoe oBX industry at. It is essential that thbe leean te. priuiople of prices and behavior in the market, and llkewiae, th relation of -ges prices. The eoanoio problem dls with taatile. Tobaco an ies have always boai a heay shae la pr6vIdga rveme ts o mental opeatlos. As iag as the elar Iabtey faes0 de demand there l Adaaer of allowlag the tax bIrda to o heavy. At ths present time all divisions o goranarat, state and looal, arn aetrohng frantically for naw revtesu If the tax 1t ianoraeue4 s oan gm it will tend to hasten sent trend tomd ebrishdna of pr o d etion. The civil problem ocmerna t e attitude of the people Taa- pa toward th w.o*gr pastry. h en the e PeOlof Tampa intelligent understanding of the problem of the oigar s id a high degree of coopertio n a assising it in changing n- al methods an modernising, the industral progre of t -he ity will be gaty lid3e The ,advanomat of thee. objeo is a step towrd a ome prosperou.p igar laustry. W ile taln- ment cannot be rapid, they oan be aoom pla ed gradually. 4 The Problie of employment in the Cigar anduatry o . The position of the cigar industry as the chief aseoe pri- mary purchasing power la in T a maee nnsmployment in this try of major impertamee to the city. Restration of employment di.- placed cigar worir a eootitutes the logical first step to tion of une*ployinat in other channels. Prerequalte toa- toration is an increase in activity in Tampa cigar factor If such a re-absorptlon of old eqployees in the cigar field is - sible, there will be a oat pressing need for aw ladustri Tampa to alleviSla the situation. here has be.n a gemaine for some years tr new ndustries in Tampa to give esployi the surplus eigat workers of the city. A review of the present extent of uneaploymnt in T7 11 be made. mmplaopmet among cigar workers has been a. seo problem in. Tapa since 190, when 1,747 wee reported as un y- ed by the cenasu report, wih the actual total probably In the census report for 1930, 11 748 workers were listed a - fully employed in the cigar inGna which Ibrepseaspted 38 cent of the gainfully aloj persona in tamp a. his 1930 ceas - port stated that1 per oent p the unemployment at Tampa a date was in the oigar indmtry. This is in oontraat with act that only 25 paer ent of eplmt In Tamp at that time this industry, and seems to date that inployment workers was coneierably higber than in the other inustrie Tampa. A conservative estimate, based on reported figures. major Tampa& igar factories, sho: the present nber of ga employed cigar workers in T!mpa to be 7500. This t a an of 4,248 from the 11 748 reported as being seloyed in the plants in 1950. It a estimated that there are in Tmp at . present tle aiproxtmate3l 4,000 cigar woke not elploed the cigar plants, although a part of these are an relief. THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA number to those employed in the plants, there a1r approximately 11,500 cigar workers in Tampa at the present timb. Since 1930 decline in demand for cigars and other causes have thus effected displacement of over 4,000 cigar a)rkers in the Tam, p industry. These persona have shifted to some other industry or have been dropped from the payrolls of cigar fifis to become part of the unemployed. A number of these persons a3L older people who have spent a good part of their lives in oigana ning, but many represent young men and women who have not been bdforbed by the cigar industry. Of the two groups the older peoBons are worse oft, as transfer to new occupations is easier for yog persons than older ones. Some of these older cigarmakers haw started small one-man shops in their homes or in cheap quarters for making and selling cigars. These are known as buckeyess." There are about seventy of them in Tampa. The Tampa cigarmakers' unions have followed a policy of spread ing the work, in an attempt to lessen the effects of unemployment in the cigar industry. As soon as it is necessary for a cigar mani facturing plant to reduce its production, instead of discharging workers, the plant operates a smaller number ofdays with its full force. This is perhaps justifiable as a temporary measure, but should not be considered as a permanent policy. It is unfair to both workers and employers, in reducing the wagds of the former, and adding to the overhead costs of the latter. Temporary agencies organized to deal with unemployment must .be differentiated from permanent measures taken to abolish it. Many Federal agencies have developed which have been considered usually as temporary means of handling unemployment. Before a review of the work being done by these agencies is made, it is desirable to point out that the ultimate solution of cigar unem- ployment will necessarily follow one or both ofitwo channels. One possibility is the Ievival of demand for cigar workers through a general rehabilitation of the cigar industry. Another means to- ward the same end is the introduction of new industries which will offer opportunities to displaced workers. A Federal agency designed to assist in reducing unemployment of young people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five is the National Youth Administration. Although started as a tempo- rary expedient for meeting problems of unemployed young people, it has proved of sufficient merit to be extended continuously since 1953. In Tampa, the NYA seeks to assist'foung people who are out of public school and unemployed toward Selection of a vo- cation and acquisition of the necessary preliminary training. At its headquarters in Tampa, 100 E. LaFayette Street, the UTA main- tains vocational training in shopcrafts and hom* economics, and offers continuation classes in English, arithmetic, geography, penmanship, and civics, for persons needing training in these sub- jects. In addition, apprenticeships are provided in many practi- cal fields with courses in library, office, hospital and commer- cial training, as well as in carpentry, brick aAd stone work, and other types of construction training. Another NYA project for Hillsborough County is a school of mechanical instruction installed at the old Su pher Springs CO.C.C Camp. It is designed to care for 100 Florida boys whose parents are on relief. Instruction is given in woodwork, sheet metal work, auto mechanics, radio and other courses. Another division of the National Youth Ad inistration in Tam- pa is the college aid to young people attending the University of Tampa, the University of Florida and other state schools.. In 1938-39 about 1,000 young people in Florida benefitted from this program of encouraging worthy students to continue their general education. In addition, about 3,500 high school students were assisted during the past year. Other methods for aiding unemployed young people include the provision of work scholarships at the University of Tampa and con- tinuation classes at the Henry W. Brewster Vocational Schools Tas IMPOBIAfNC OF TI CIGAB INDUSTRY TO TAMPA 61 part of the Tampa Oity Schools. In the rewster School day evening classes ae maintained throughout most of the year printing, ntma Ane shop practice, radio, 10ectricity, sheet layout and drafting, mill-cabinet work and other branches o op work. The school also has a commercial division in which - ous courses are offered ,n bookkeeping, shorthand, typewrlt office practice and other practical fields* The Works Progress Adminlstration is the Federal ageno - signed to assist unemployed older'workes in finding a t means of inaom or in shifting to new fields of deployment i- cently in Hillabowioe County, the WPA ba spent 00,000 p month or O0,000,000 anmnally in providing emorgeny el on street i provemets, building oonstraction and other te projects. In addition to the WPA expeditures, the district 1- fare board is adaiatsteaing over 00,000 pew year while t - ty relief Uependltrem a r about r 0,000 per year. These bring the eatmated animal eoet of relief In Tampa to 7, At least half of this expense is necessitated by cigar u ment. The possibility of the cigar industry of Tampa taking to modernize the factories and introduce improved methods by competitors is the north is discussed in other sections of Report. If asoo atl, this would tend to alleviate soe o existing unemloyent. after a period of time sufficient f. plants to poft by the modernization. however, it is net lived that the Tap oigar eanies can absorb all the un played cigar workea in p for scae yewas. A sqplement to sueh effort would eomsiat of introduce industrial to Tampa which ooald absorb tho balance of unep Since most of the wamployed aiga worked ar Latlp by e ion, a special perblm is' faced of obtaining industries which o be adaptable te the qualities of the latin workers, particular handicraftan. A Tampa business man has recently become ested in obtaining a nvber of ladies' garment plants for T He has based his efforts in this connection on the observat that Latin ,omn have been able to shift froam eigarmaking to nt manufacture nl an old oigar factory building in West Ta-,pa. order to make this transfer of employment to textiles, only to forty-five days of preliminary training were necessary. a the opinion of this business man that other garment factorie might be induced to locate in Tampa. It is believed that a prosperous garment-ak indust t be established la the city, if these initial efforts are u - ful. Latin worked are particularly adaptable to this type ork, and the uneplrepmnt omaog thamL igt be reduced substantial y an expansion of this industry in Tapa. Another possibility Tampa would seem to be the canning industry, with plants usi the fruits and vegetables produced in central Florida. Handa crafts, which would enable the latin workers to use their and not require mauh manual strength, might be successfully ted In Tampa if the necessary steps would be taken to bring the e. In Part VII of this Report a suggestion is offered that 3uban Quarter be constructed in Ybor City. This could be de bo represent the architecture, mode of living, dress, and c )f a Cuban city. Aroupd this center of attraction for tour a shopping and entertainment district could be developed. If ees- 'ul, this plan Aght give employment to many Latins, and ben the Fhole City of Tapa, by bringing in additional tourists. This problem.of Tampa's unemployed, of whom so many are workers, is civic as well as industrial. The citizens of lave a responsibility in this connection, as well as the ci theirr industries. Efforts to help the situation by encourag the :igar companies to modernize theiir plants, providing facilit for ;he training of unemployed workers, and bringing new industry to .ampa, are measures that should receive the attention and o ition of every Tampa citizen. If Part VI OPERATNmG RESULTS OF TAMPA CIGAR PLANTS 1 Scope of the Investigation In this survey the complete records of the nineteen el com- panies of Tampa which are embers of the Tampa Cigar Nanufa era' Association, called in the Report the hand plants, were ed. These companies are referred to as hand plants, although ae of them have in recent years introduced in their plants an sei- machine processes for part of their Clas A production. - tally, they represent the old hand cigar industry of Tampa. in- vestigation was centered largely in the operation of these- ts, as they are having uore difficulties than the other plants the present time. The operations of the HBaatampa Cigar Can inspected, and data seared for a period of years oonerni e. The Havatampe Cigar COany is efficiently operated, and ie a much better economic position than the hand plants of Tam ,o information was gathered relative to the small independent companies of Taump. For the purpose of ascertaining the results of opetati of the Tampa hand plants, an inspection and analysis of their was made for each year back to the middle of the decade of 1920's. The Tamup hand oigar industry was prosperous dur is decade, and it wua felt that a comparison of the results of a. period with later operations might be advantageous. Hence, investigation started with the year 196 and included each through 1938. meo data were gathered for the first six mO of 1939, but complete data concerning operations were not a - able for this period. All of the records of ea.h hand cigar company were p ed. These included production records and internal revenue boo oat records of all kinds, payroll books, sales records, price 11 , etc. It likewise included complete financial records of ea m- pany. The annual certified statements of auditors were mad il- able for each company back to 1925. These annual auditors' te- ments were carefully analyzed, to determine the real conditi of the cigar companies. The records of some of the hand cigar plants of Tampa not kept as efficiently as they should be. Difficulty was enoo ed in getting detailed cost and expense figures in some plants, - ticularly for past years. Payroll and production records t as complete as they should be in some plants. There is room r considerable- improvement in the accounting records of many o companies. It is believed that the data gathered from the Tampa pl a are quite reliable, and, considering the possibility of a margin of error, the figures presented in this Report are co ot. It is felt that this part of the survey included a sufficient thorough check on the operations of the cigar companies of T to permit an authentic appraisal of these, and to justify ce in recommendations as to the solution of some of the problems. In conformity with ethical practice, no information con - ing the operations of any individual plant, where it sl poas e to identify the plant, will be given. Composite totals, inc ing operating results from all the plants, or groups of them, shown. This part of the Report will deal largely with statistic tables showing results of various operations of the plants, an analysis of each. General information concerning the T companies and their problems has been given in preceding sec , so will not be included in this one. 64 TBH CIGAR INDUSTRY OP TAMPA, FLORIal A list of the nineteen Tampa hand cigar pladhs, which are members of the Tampa Cigar Manufacturers' Asso~ition, is given in Table 60, where the companies are shown olass lled aboording to types of tobacco used. 2 The Cigar Industry of Florida. In this survey of the Tampa cigar industry it was considered advisable to investigate tbw industry in the entire state, to show the position of Tampa relative to that of the State of Florida. Almost all of the important cigar plants in Florida, outside of Tampa, are machine plants* Of these, John H. Swisher and Son, Inc., in Jacksonville, is the outstanding plant in the state. Because of the importance of this plant in the output of the national cigar industry, it will be -deewlbed briefly. The Swisher Company moved from Newark, Ohio to Jacksonville in 1923, being in this year a very small firm. At this time cigar ma- chines were just beginning to be operated in a practical manner. The company acquired machines for its operations and centered its production oh a 5 cent cigar, the King Edward. Sales of this oi- gar increased rapidly, the company's production being around 100,000,00 annually, from 1926 to 1933. Cigar consumptionn dropped sharply in the depression and the selling price of the King Bdward cigar was reduced to 2 for 6 cents. Sales then picked up so rapid- ly that new machines and enlarged factory space.#ere required, and the working force increased to two shifts. In 1355 production ex- ceeded that of 1932 by 40 per cent, while in 1954 there was a 67 pm cent gain over 1955, with a production exceeding one million cigars daily. This production in a plant area of 80,000 square feet made the company the most productive cigar plant in the world. This was followed by a gain of 29 per cent in 1955, 19 pe .cent in 1936, 15 per cent in 1957, and 15 per cent in 1958. A 600,000 addition to the plant was required in 1955 and a$400,000 addition in 1939, to
take care of the expanding business. This Inclided the Oonstruc-
tion of a large processing plant at Quincy to p ipare the West Plor.
ida tobacco. When the factory addition at Jacksonville is complet-
ed, It is planned to produce 750,000,000 cigars a year.
Sales of the Swisher cigars are made throughout the entire
United States, and in addition the company enjoys important for-
eign business. A liberal policy of advertising is followed, most
of which is of the outdoor type.
At the present time the Swisher Company ha# the largest pro-
duction of any cigar plant in the world, this being about two mil-
lion cigars daily. It employs 2,500 workers, of whom 2,200 are
women, including all machine operators. The annual payroll exceeds
$2,000,000, amounting to nearly .40,000 per week. The operations are carried on entirely by machines,the two-operator,short filler machines being used. There are 286 bf these in the plant, which number will be increased with the Aew plant addition. The tobacco used is mostly domestic, with same from Puerto Pico and the Philip pines. Two eight-hour shifts are used in the plnt, from 7:00 A.M. to 5:50 P.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 12:50 A.M. The plant operation other than cigar making are highly mechanized, uuch operations as stripping, blending and mixing of tobacco, cell)phaning, banding, stamping, etc., all being done by machines. .Coiveyors carry the *tobacco from the mixing room in the basement to the storage room on the third floor, from whence it is sent thrdtgh chutes to the cigar machines on the second floor. The operations of the plant are marked by efficiency in all departments. A low piece-rate is paid the machine operators for cigars produced, which helps the company secure a low cost of production, but because of the gene- ral efficiency of the machines and the plant, tie operators make satisfactory wages. The company has done a great deal in the field of welfare work for its employees, and they appear to be OPERATING BRSLTL S O tlMPd C4dR PLANTS 65 satisfied*. Th* plant is non-anion. - Smaller aeksonville plants inelade GOoae-le and pany, Inc., oread by the Cuesta-Ra ain Cpeaa of Tipa, a H. s. white oCgar Company, Ino. The oaosales and Banches started in Jaksonville in 1901 and for ei years was a plant. It now 9ues autmlatio meMbinet and th.e nMh na and hand-rolled process. The H, S. blit Cpay en- tirely by the automatic machine. The amot im r tantf the plants is the Higdon Cigar Company, I. which es et dest tobacco in its operations. Several of the Miami and Key I - plants 1re of aomr importance. Because of the large production of the Swisher O aPs, ek- sonville ranks first among the cities of Plorida in total r of cigars produced. Tampa, on account of the higher lasse cigars produced, pays ore revenue, and produces the send eat number of egars. Quincy ranks next in cigar prodaoti which is chiefly with tobacco grown in Vest Florida. Miami next among the cigar producing centers of Plorida, followed oey West. This last named city, once the national leader in the - duction of Havana cigars, now ranks as last among the p centers of the state. In Table 51 there is shown the total number of establish t manufacturing cigars, cigarettes, and other tobacco products Florida from 1910 1938. -rom this table it oan be seen t the total number of tobacco manufacturing plants in Florida has creased from 385 to 168, between 1915 and 1938. Of the total ber, almost all are sigar companies, with a very few making ettes. The number of plants producing miscellaneous tobaco ucts in Florda has decreased substantially since 1916, jhil e cigarette plant were never large in number or important. Table -i shows the location of cigar companies in Flor in 1939. Ao rDding to this table, there are ninety oe-panies Tampa, eighteenn 1Key West, twelve in Jaksaonville, ten in I, and four in Quiney, with a smaller number in other cities in e state. Some of the cigar companies listed are very small sm latively unimportant. Table 56'gives statistics for the larger cigar oopanie Florida, as gathered by the Census Bureau, the figures s the changes in each census year from 1890 1927. As a of small plants are not included in these census data, t shown for somw items are not mpeh larger than the Tapa plan alone. From this table it is seen that there were more oi plants in Florida in 1919 than at any other period, 820 as o with fifty-aoe 4n 19M7. She largest eamoat of wage1 was paid these plants in 1987, this being 913,385,000, as compared wt$6,861,000 paid in 1957. he number of wage earners as
in 1909, 1919, and 1999, with over 12,000 workers, dropping
9,966 in 1937. The greatest cost of materials was in 1995
1925. be 1937 cost of material s not very mcah below th
figures., fbe value of the prodget was greatest in 1929, wi
$41,087,000, as compared with$4,972,000 in 1937. The val
added by manufaturing was likewise greatest in 1929, being
twice as great as in 1937. This table shows that the value
cigars produced in Florida per wage eane and per unit of
rial cost has dropped considerably in recent years. In 1985
value of product per wagS earner was 9,477 as compared with
$2,506 in 1937. In 195- the value of product per whit of Ma rial cost was 9.41 as eempared with j.97 in 1937. The total sales of cigars In the State of Florida, div into the five revenue classes, and the percentage of each Of ae to the total, from 1900-938, are shown In Tables 54 aad B5. these tables it is seen that the total oigars made in Plaer creased from 513,010,000 in 190D to 83~,941,000 in 19S8. creased production of this total in recent years has been largely by the increase in machine-made, Class A cigars centage of Class A cigars to the total production in Flordda increased from 6 per cent in 1990 to 47 per cent in 1930, 66 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA per cent in 1938, while the higher classes of cigars have declined considerably, the decline in Class C being from 64 per cent In 1920 to 38 per cent in 1950, and 12 per cent in 1938. 3 The Cigar Industry of the Tampa District. Statistics for the Internal Revenue District of Tampa in- clude all the cgar companies, both machine and hand, in the city, and in addition cigar plants in cities near Tampa. Figures for the Tampa district thus include a number of plants other than the nineteen hand plants of Tampa. Tables 56 and 57 show the cigars sold in the Tampa district each year from 1920*1938, divided into classes, with the percent- age of each class to the total in each year. The total cigars sold in the district increased from 227,791,000 in 1920 to 504,753,000 in 1929, from which point they declined to 374,627,000 in 1938. Most of the increase was accounted for by the Class A cigars, which showed a very great increase, while pll of the high- er classes decreased. The percentage of the total comprised by the Class A cigars increased from 5 per cent in 1920 to 36 per cent in 1930 and 65 per cent in 1938. At the same time Class C cigars declined from 61 per cent in 1920 to 45 per cent in 1930 and 26 per cent in 1938, while the other higher classes declined even more sharply. Table 58 compares the trend of sales in the Tampa district with that in Florida and the United States. Two indices have been prepared to show these trends, one based on the year 1920, and one on 1929, which was the peak year for both the Tampp District and the state. Production in Tampa in 1920 was abnormally low because of the. strike. The first of these trends for the-Tampa District, based on 1920 production, is upward, reaching 221.6 in 1929, drop- ping to 128.2 in 1933, and rising to 164.5 in 1938. The trend for Florida is somewhat different, being a gradual increase with no peaks and valleys from 1920 to 1938, when the index stood at 163.1, very close to the Tampa District index. Production in the United States dropped from 1920 1938, having an index of 63.6 in the latter year. The trend from 1929 to 1938 was downward for the Tampa Dis- trict, this decline going to 57.8 in 1933, and increasing to 74.2- in 1958. This closely paralleled national production,which dropped to 66.0 in 1933, rising to 79 1 in 1938. However, production for the Florida District was entirely different. It likewise decreased to 74.2 in 1933, but since that year showed a remarkable increase to 137.7 in 1938. The rapid increase of the prodUction of the Swisher Company, in Jacksonville, accounted for this state trend. In Table 59 is shown the estimated payroll of all the plants in the Tampa area each year from 1926 1938. In 1938 this pay- roll amounted to 45,883,000, which was only 62.3 per cent of what it was in 1926. The payroll peak in the industry was in 1929, when the total was$10,968,000, about double that of 1938. However, the
purchasing power of a dollar in 1938 was considerably greater than
in 1929. When the depression started the payroll declined to
$4,972,000 in 1933, rising sporadically from that year to 1938. Table 60 shows the number of employees in Tampa cigar facto- ries, including machine factories, separated as to men and women, in 1930 and 1939. It is seen that in 1930 the Tampa cigar industry employed 11,748 persons, while in 1939 this number had declined to .6,997. This total is for the larger plants in the Tampa area. In- cluding the small, independent plants, and the buckeyess", it is estimated that 7 500 workers are at present employed in Tampa ci- gar factories. his table shows the pronounced trend toward the employment of women. In 1930 men comprised 57 per cent of the cigar workers, and women 43 per cent, while in 1939, women made up 55 per cent and men 45 per cent, of the total workers in tve Tampa cigar industry. OPRSATIfG RESULTS OF TAMPA CIGAR PLANTS A consideration of cigar manufacturing %n the Tampa D ct should include the activities of the Havatampa Cigar C which for some years has been the leading producer in Tampa This company was founded by Mr. Eli Witt, a very ente ing mai, who cam to Tampa in 1904 and engaged in the wholesale tri- bution of cigars. In Janoe 1918 he started his own factory Tampa for manufacturing cigars. Hand methods of production followed in this plant for sose years, both the Spanish - tem and the mold method being used. Mr. Witt was not satis with the low productivity and high labor cost of the hand and early in 1924 Installed machines in his Tampa plant, proved very successful. When the Havatampa plant was meo a policy was-followed of retaining the old workers, insofar this was possible. In'order to retain as many as possible, bun machines with hand rollers were put in the plant, along wit automatic machines. Some teams of hand mold workers were The Havatampa Company has a daily output at the present e of approximately one-half million cigars, mostly Class A. 11 part of these are made by hand molds, about one-sixth with - ing machines and hand-rolling, and the rest on automatic ma as. These machines are all of the short filler, two-operator ty sixty-two of them being in use, besides twenty-three bnoh - chines with their hand rollers. The plant is operated two t- hour shifts a day. There are almost 1,000 workers employed in the avatzm lait. About three-fourths of these are women, all machine operate ing women. The annual payroll averages about three-fourths of a - lion dollars,with a weekly payroll of approximately$15,000
wages received by these workers are satisfactory, being abo hose
now received by the workers in the hand cigar plants of T The
company does maly things to promote the health, comfort and i-
ness of the workers. The plant is non-union.
The Havatampa plant is efficiently operated in all de nts.
The tobacco used in the cigars comes partly from domestic a es
and partly from other countries, the wrappers and binders
domestic, and the filler a blend of domestic and Cuban toba
with some from Puerto Rico. A careful check on materials i in-
tained, every ounce of tobacco being weighed and accounted
Besides being used for cigarmaking, modern machines are us
stripping* oellophaning, banding, stamping, and punching o
Economies of many kinds have been installed in the plant, t duce
costs.
Much attention has been given by the company to advert ,
the expenditures for this exceeding those of all the hand a
plants of Tampa combined. This advertising has been effect
helping build up the company's business. It is outdoor ad sing
mostly, but includes showcases, windows, radio etc., and a
missionary work. The concern has been fortunate in having
Eli Witt company for'an important distribution outlet, this 1-
ing company making about half of its sales.
The Havatampa Cigar Company is an example of a cigar p
which has put mechanized Improvements and efficiency into i
operations in a producing area where such a policy was not red.
The success of this company is proof of the soundness of thi l-
icy.
Another plant in the Tampa District, other than the ha ts,
is Thompson and Company, Inc., of Bartow. This company clos its
hand factory in Tampa in 1956, moving it to Bartow where it
combined with its machine plant established some years befo Its
selling office is still maintained in Tampa. This company i et-
ing with very satisfactory success. It is one of the three T a
cigar companies using the mail order method of direct sales. con-
sumers, the other two being J.W. Roberts and Son, and the J.
Swann Company (sales organisation for Lopez, Alvares and C y).
Besides the Tampa hand plants which are members of the a
Cigar Manufacturers' Association, there are several small p s
which are operating in Tampa outside of this organization, as

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

non-union plants. The survey did not investigate these as fully
as the others, but general data gathered concerning them indicates
that some are prosperous and others are not. Inolfded in this
group is the Val M. Antuono factory, one of Tampa'% oldest cigar
firms. numerous buckeyess" operate in Tampa. Thete are composed
of one oigarmaker with possibly several assistants and make 1c-
gars by hand in a anall shop or in a home. Their output and ef-
feet on the industry are negligible.

4 Tampa Cigar Plants Production and Sales.
As has been stated, this survey stressed the problems of the
hand cigar plants of Tampa, which are more serious than any of the
others,carrying the investigation of their operating records back
to 1926. Data concerning the production and sales of these plants
follow.
In analyzing the results of operations of the Tampa hand ci-
gar plants, it should be pointed out that these plants are not ex-
actly homogeneous. In the classification given at the beginning
of this section, it was shown that the hand plants used different
types of wrapper tobacco in their operations, some using Havana
and some shade wrappers. The processes used also tend to vary.
It was desired to set up a classification based on processes, bat
it was found that there were so many combinations Of these, and de-
grees of changes in the proportion of total output made by each,
that such a classification would be confusing rath r than enlight-
ening.
The Tampa hand cigar companies vary greatly iA size, the cap-
italization ranging from $25,000 to$4,000,000 for the individual
plants, the net sales from $100,000 to$2,000,000,'the output of
cigars from 1,000,000 to 35,000,000, and the number of employees
from 30 to 1,000.
Table 61 shows a classification of the Tampa lgants according
to capitalization, sales, cigars manufactured, and'employees. It
is seen that four of these companies are very large, being capital-
ized at more than $1 000,000, and two have a capitalization between$500,000 and $1,000,600. Six of the companies hav small capital- ization ranging from$25,000-$100,000. In sales aAd total cigars manufactured five of the companies are outstanding v having sales exceeding$1,000,000 and producing over 20,000,000 cigars. Three
more companies have sales ranging 5,00,000- l,000,00 and produce
10,000,000-20,000 000 cigars. Theme same five companies have over
500 employees, while four others have from 250-500 Seven of the
companies make sales ranging between $100,000-$250000 and pro-
duce 1,000,000-5,000,000 cigars.- Five companies have 90-100 em-
ployees.
This table shows that there is a vast difference in the size
and operations of the Tampa companies, which wouldhave a decided
influence on their policies and problems of production, sales, and
general management. It is seen that there is whatLmay be termed
a group of large companies, and likewise a group of small compan-
ies, with other plants in between. On some matter the large
plants and the small plants have divergent interests.
Some of these small plants that are finding difficult to
operate successfully, might consider the advisab ty of consol-
idating with other companies. It is believed that a number of
consolidations in the Tampa cigar industry, not only for small
companies, but of large ones as well, would'be advantageous for
the firms and for the industry.
Table 62 shows the total number of cigars sold by these
plants each year, 1926 1958. It is seen that the production of
the plants was 230,287,000 in 1926, from which figure it increased
to a peak of 308,552,000 in 1929. It then declined each year to a
low of 180,142,000 in 1955, followed by a gradual Increase to
215,572,000 in 1938, which is slightly less than in 1937 or 1956.

OPiATING RLSULtS OF TIEPd CIGAR PLANTS

Using 1989 as a bse year, the sales aeibed to 404 in 1929,
clined to 78.8 In 1955, as increased to 9S.6 in 1958. The
sales ar 09.9 per ceat of those in 1929.
Tables 65 sad 64 show- the division of sale into the re
classes eanh yea, 1926 1938, with the pepoeatae of each the
annual total. Thea ar very asipitioant figures, as they e in
what is perhaps the at serious probi of the Tampa band :
industry, a .l, the great increase I the Closs A ogar the
decrease in the higher olasse during this period. The ale
Class A oigar inoreesed frem 21,572,000 to 94,400,000 a
period, or 4.4 times, eprseating 9.4 per ent of the total
1926, and 45,8 per oent in 1938. Class B parentage of iota les
also inereamed 28 tmas, beiag 2.4 per cent of the total in
and 5.7 pe cent in 1938. The higher classes, C, D, and e
correspondingl Class 0 dropped fro 5 .9 per ce~t to 41.1
cent, Ola s fra 89.4 per sent to 9.2 per cent, and 0lass
0.8 per cent to 0.1 pr cent, in the period.
from these tables it can be seen that whereas in 1996 a t
nine-tentha of te production of these plants was in the
grades of cigars at the present tim only about half of it
these olasesu.: A the and igar industry of pa ha alma
a quality production ee ter, dependent upon high grad a
its very e'O t mOe, this shift in market dead has cottit a
severe blow for it. Te Tapa lp ndautry has been built up on
manufacture of high rad cigars by the Spnaish hand proass a
process is Ot praete l fr. low grade oigari, in three h-
anised age* The 458 per cent Class A production shld all
made by a mamhine.
Under the prLent competitive aaoditiosa in the matloan -
gar industry, the Spsanab hand system not suitable for 0 C
production, whieh if still very important, with its 41.1 per t
of the total. A faster System than the 8paniah hand is used
these oigar in most of the cigar prodPung areas except
This is the competitive system, hich certain of the Taimp
facturers would like to install and bih may be the only a
tion for this problem. a Part V of thia Report ha so e me
mendations relative to this condition.
Another Upeot of this situation that should be pointed
is that it igiat be possible by effective advertising and
salesmanship to oheek the decline in the sale of the higher
cigars and restore part of the lost market for them It i
that this can be done, but a prerequisite to funds for dver
is a system of Rnfaoturet p ittng.eer podtivity, et
the coalpatitio Opf other centers.
Table 46 abhoa the sales of oigara by classes during th at
six month of 1A59, Proe these figures it can be see that
situation 1 growing are, as the Olaes A sales have' increa
to 48.4 per ent of the total, and the Class C ogars decrees
to 37.6 per sent.
Beoeus of the ipportanoe of this analysis of the prodc n
of the Ianpa hand plants a breakdown is made to carry it a le
further. K na cigar plants fall into three group, and
problem of these are not entirely the same. Plants in the t
of these groups manufaoture clear Ravana cigars exclusively,
the second, pVat hava ana d part aade, and in the third,
shade. The pra Potion of each of these groups divided into
five revenue olaass was analysed from 1926-1958.
Tables 6g, 07, and 48 show the quantity of igara d
in each on of these groups in eaqh year, 1926-1938, divided
the reveone classes. Fro these tables it is seen that the 1
production of the clear javana plants inorased 56.9 per et -
tween 19i and 1938, that of the combination Havana and ants
increased 22.9 per cent, while that of the ehade plants deo
42.7 per oset, between these dates. These tables also show
all three group increased their production of Class A and
B cigars substantially, the .clear avana increase in then l e

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA; FLORIDA

being greater than the others. In all three group there was a
large decline in the production of Classes D and. In the shade
plants and the combination plants the production Class C cigars
decreased, but in the Havana plants there was an increase in this
class, in this period.
Tables 69, 70, and 71 show the percentage of the total pro-
duction in these three groups of plants that is mase up of the
different revenue classes. It is seen that in 1936 the combina-
tion plants had 68.6 per cent of their production In Class A ci-
gars, and the Havana plants 51 per cent, while the shade plants
had 20 per cent. Likewise, that the combination and Havana plants
had 26.6 per cent and 34.7 per cent of their production in Class
C, while the shade group had 65.6 per cent of its production in
this class.
Table 72 shows the proportion of the total production, and dt
each of the revenue classes, that was produced by aach of these
groups of plants, in 1938 and as an average over he period, 1926 -
1938. In 1958 the first two groups of plants produced 86 per cent
of the Class A production, and the shade plants 14 per cent. In
the same year the shade plants produced 47.4 per aent of Class C,
while the Havana plants and the combination plants, produced 35.13
per cent and 19.5 per cent of this class.
Prom these tables it can be observed that in the period pre-
ceding the depression the clear Havana plants produced a larger
proportion of high quality cigars in the Tampa iraket, than the
shade plants, and the latter a larger proportion of Class A ci-
gars. Now the situation is somewhat reversed in regard to the lat-
ter class. The bulk of the shade production has been in Class C
cigars throughout the entire period.
A careful study of these tables should result in an intelli-
gent understanding of production trends within th# industry, that
might help in solving some of its problems.
Table 73 shows a seasonal index of sales of cigars by classes
during each month in 1938. November and October gre the busiest .
months in the cigar market of Tampa plants-. June likewise has
brisk sales, whereas January is the dullest month, followed by De-
cember and February.
One of the constructive criticisms that this reportt makes of
the Tampa hand cigar industry is that the plants produce too many
different sizes of cigars. Modern American companies in other in-
dustries have learned that it is costly and even tasteful to pro-
duce a multiplicity of models and types of products, so have con-
centrated their efforts on as few as possible.' ,.
In Table 74 it is seen that 826 different brands are now being
manufactured by the Tampa hand plants. Authorities in the. industry
state that there are at least half of this number or 400, diffeinl
sizes of cigars made in the Tampa plants. It would seem that the
Tampa cigar industry should do as other industries have found ad-
visable, and eliminate a number of these brands aid sizes. Adver-
tising of a few brands could be done much more effectively than of
a large number.

5 Tampa Cigar Plants Financial Statements.
In Table 75 a composite balance sheet is shown of the Tampa
hand cigar plants each year, 1926 1958. These figures include
eighteen plants,the records of one plant being too incomplete for
inclusion. It can be seen that the capitalization of the Tampa
hand plants is about $13,500,00. The figures show a conservative and favorable situation, as Tar as the capitalization of the plants is concerned. The net worth has increased slightly in the period, from$10,704,000 to $13,334,000, rising to a peak: of$15,780,000
in 1951 and declining after that year to the figure named, with a
consistent decline. The total assets have increased slightly in
the period, going from $12,787,000 to$15,585,000. Assets reached
their peak in 1950, with a total of $18,205,000, followed by a OPAN=TIU WU I3 OP tdNP1. CIGR PLAI0TS decline f mro t y y.ear to 198. Total. lablities woze 1, in 1958 as O64 Od with ,Pe69,000 to :IAUl Ina A8 they$3,s223s,o00 froaeeh poela th*y deollaad to a1w7,000 I
rising each Oyea fiP this date to .1938 Oreat wat fixed
and liability i, as ll aO counts ree2elvable as nds aeote le
may likewisebe -seo fiao this table.
In Table 76 ocrtai ratios mand pe atages of the t
figures are show. The ratio of weOkI g capital, o current to
to current liabilities wa 6.04 in 19, a favorable ratio,
not as great as in se past pars. Sh ratio of -at worth t
rent liabilities we 8.58, h2 b b is likewise favorable, bt
great as it has been in resent years. The ratio of net worth
total liabilitteU wMS 7.96. The ratio of net worth to total to
was .87, of ouirent asise to total assets, .61, ea of Ua-
bilities to total liabilities, .85. The ratios show satisfao
conditions.
Table 77 -shows s very significant figures, naimly t
profit of the llopa hand plants k ah 1sa, 1996 1938, wth
percentage Of tiLs profit tto t worth Of tee nineteen
hand plantau, iea data were not available for three, *Aoh
all sales tbprou selling omopanies, an did not has data di
ing net profit tar this period.
These figures tell a sad story, and should be a conlamsi
answer to persons not familiar with the situation who awe und
impression that the Tamp*hand plant have ade large profits
recent years. The net profits of the eO panies have dwAndled
$2,138,000 in 1988 to f6,000 In 1938. Not many industries in United States have shown such a precipitous drop. On a capi ization exceeding$13,000,000, a 6 per. oent return would
at least SOO0S0 annually. This figure has not been
since 1951. -ft rturn on invested capital was 0.05 per eeat
1938, and has been less than 2 per cent every year with one
ception siace 195e. In 191 and 1980 the returns were fair
ceeding 7 per oent and 8 per cent, reopectively. Prior to
the profits Were excellent, exceeding 1 per cent. busin
operating under eat fiaetory conditions should be able to
6 per cent on ts' investment. If its return ar leas than
third of this aoant, something is wrong and should be core
In 1938, the neteen of tha nineteen hand r companies of
six made s oft tal. Of these six copant only
made satiao profits, the returns of the other three be
small. thfle -ae that only one-third of the band cigar
of Tampa are making ar profits at all, and only one-sixth of
are making satlhetory profits. This situation is a Tvra
is factory one ad wouldd convince everyone .of the Anessity
prompt and effective measures being taken by the indautry, if
expects to conti4an to operate.
In the first six month of 1959, reports fra twelve of
hand igar plant showed a net loss amounting to appro atl
0.43 per ont on the capitalisation of these orpaenies. P li
and lose figures for the. other -oapanies were not available.
downward trend ft earnings appears to be continuing.
Tables 78 and 79 show a composite profit and loss stat
together with percentage of each group of expenses to cost of es
for each year from 192 1938 Because of the lack of detaa ex-
pense record int some of the plants, these data were om fourteen plants.
It can be seen that the net sales of the oampanies have
creased.in zeent yeas in 1938 being about half of the total
the peak year 1989 but slightly larger than in the depress
years. The ratio of cot of sales to nt sales has increased d-
ily since 1926, being 76.4 per cent in that year and 81.8 per t
in 1938. The ratio of selling costs to net sales has likewise
increased from 5.6 per oent in 1986 to 9.2 per cent in 1938, e
administrative costs have risen from 5.4 per cent to 7.6 per o
This constant increase in the proportion to the total coo

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA *

of production eosts, selling costs, and administrative coats of the
plants has meant that the margin of profit has grlfn steadily Sall.
er. For this group of plants It has dropped frol a peak of 96.
per cent in 1928 to 0.1 per cent in 1958, based o-Snet sales. This
margin of total costs to sales is entirely too grant. It is caused
by a reduction in sales prices, possibly combined with a lack of
efficient operation of the plAnts.

6 Tampa Cigar Plants Chief Ooats of Production: Labor, Tobacco,
Taxes.
In this sub-section and the one which follow the individual
costs of the hand cigar plants will be pointed out, the most ispor-
tant costs first, then the minor ones. Detailed cost figures were
not available in all the plants for years prior to 1930, so the ones
shown for the entire group of companies are from 9.30 1938.
Table 80 showste three principal costs of Qhe Tampa hand
cigar industry, labor, tobacco and taxes. Labor Pefers to the
direct labor used in the plant, tobacco to the colt of tobacco
alone, excluding duties, and taxes to the total tzxes paid by
the companies, Pederal, state and local, including duties on im-
ported tobacco.
In 1958, labor comprised 40.8 per cent of the cost of sales,
tobacco 27.5 per cent, and taxes 20.3 per cent, the three to-
gether making up 88.6 per cent of the total cost if sales in the
plants. DLring the period, 1930-1938, labor madeiup 40.5 per
cent of the cost of sales, tobacco 30.2 per cent, 'taxes 19. per
cent and the three together, 89.9 per cent.
The proportion of total cost of sales represented by labor in-
creased during this period, 1.8 per cent, or fromP39.0 per cent to
40.8 per cent. In 1934 labor constituted 42.7 pet cent of the cost
of sales, following which it declined to 1938. Slight changes in
labor rates, and the trend toward the partial use:of machines in
some of the plants, accounted for these changes.
The proportion of cost represented by taxes Increased 3.1 per
cent, or from 17.2 per cent to 20.3 per cent during this period.
The addition of social security taxes and increased Federal, state
and local taxes were chiefly responsible for this increase.
The proportion of cost represented by tobacco declined 5.5 per
cent, or from 32.8 per cent to 27.5 per cent betwSen 1930 and 1938.
There was some reduction in general market prices-of tobacco dur-
ing this period, and some lower grades of tobacco were purchased.
The change in market demand to cheaper cigars has caused the compa-
nles to use cheaper tobacco. The general quality 4f Cuban tobacco
has declined somewhat in recent years, owing to inadequate ferti-
lization and adverse climatic conditions. A discussion of the to-
bacco problem has been given in Parts I and V.
Table 81 shows the cost of labor, tobacco, and taxes per I
cigars manufactured by the Tampa Plants, 1950 1938. In 1938 the
cost of labor per N cigars manufactured was $19.65, of tobacco,$13.26, and of taxes, $9.76. The average costs during this period were labor,$21.25 tobacco $15.84, and taxes$lN.07. The present
coat of all three ls lower than thq average cost of each for this
period. The sum of the three was (42.65 in 1958,f while the aver-
age total of the three for the period was #47.16.
The next table, number 82, shows the cost of tobacco and du-
ties each year, then the amount of each separateW, with the per-
centage of each to the total. The cost of tobacco has declined,
from $5 780,000 in 1930 to$2 907 000 in 1958. 0 t reached a
low cost of $2,379,000 in 1935. The 1938 total is higher than in any year since 19352 with one exception. The cost of duties has-fluctuated considerably in this peri- od. Beginning with$1,311,000 in 1950 they.declined to $674,000 in 1954, rising again to$1,206,000 in 1937, and dropping to
$953,000 in 1958. The low duties of 1934 and 1935 can be traced to the effects of the Cuban Reciprocity Treaty. In 1936 these OPERATING RESULTS OF TAMPA CIGAR PLANTS rates were raised and the duties rose sharply. 'These rates shown in Table 49 in Part V. Duties cmarise about one-third of the eost of tobacco ported froi QOuba* Sevetl years ago they *ade up about one As some of the *aNMI plants use eam domestic tobacco in op- erations the eoot of duties for thea is less. Table 8 ab8how the cost per oalga smtaoaoctured of oo and duties together, then separately. In 1938 this joint e figure ws I17. while its average for the period was$(0. The
cost of tobseeo alone was 013.26 per I in 1938 and 15.84- the
period. The east of duties per X in 1968 was 64.42, while
$4.57 for the peYiod. In Tabl 84 is shown the amount of taxes of different paid by the Taqpa plants annually, 1930-1958, with the p of each to the total. In 1938, 44.6 per cent of the total made up of duties, and 41.9 per cent of. Internal reveme t , while 13.8 per cent represented other taxes. The proport taxes coprlised by dutile has been fairly constant, alt tobacco imported has groun lees expensive. The part made revenue taxes has decreased, while the other taxes have n aed sharply. he prodfition of lower priced eigar and reduced tion aoonted for oat of thb decree in internal rev e n while PedeFal state and local taxes have beel raised subt causing the oias of other taxes to increase. In Table 85 is abown the cost pa M c igars mnuft duties, Internal revne, and other taxes. In 1938 duties 04.36, internal revenue taxes$4.08, and other taxes $1.35. The aver- age of these coats wast duties$4.57, revenue taxes $I.40 other taxes *D0.. Tablp 88 shows the present internal revenue taxes on e according to the principal internal revenue aots froa 190 The last change in these rates as mCde in 1986, the rates s year being in effect at the present tie. These rates per a are: 4.75 for aril cigars weighing not more than 5 pounds .00 for Class A cigars, e 3.00 for Class Bi ".00 for Class C, for Class D and 135.60 for Class E eigas.. In Prt V of this report a list of port duties on t 0 is given in Table 49. The 1936 duties are effective at the nt time. These duties per pound are:$172 for st- ed wra i .20
for unstemed wrapper, $.40 for steamed filler,$.28 for
filler and sorap.
It is a debatable point as to whether the customs duti
internal revenue taxes on cigars are shifted to the oaus
borne by the manufacturer. In view of the present highy tl-
tive state of the cigar industry, and the declining maket the
product, it is believed that a substantial share of these is
absorbed by the companlee. This tends to be especially ble
in the ease of the eusteus duties, as this tax is not levi the
chief oepetitive product of the cigar industry, cigarettes
Tables 87 and 88 give the breakdown of the taxes in i-
cal Tampa eigar factories in 1933 and 1938. In the case of so
companies the tax burden amounted to 21.5 per cent of coet ales
in 1933, and 18.9 per cent of coat of sales in 1938. A difa ce
between the taxes paid in these two periods was that .in 19g pro-
cessing tax was required, and in 1938 social security taxes
in effect, as well as unemployment insurance, both amount
substantial items. Another different was caused by. the in-
creases in state, county, and city taxes in the years betwe 935
and 1938. The amount paid in duties was also much higher.
these tables the individual taxes paid by cigar plants can een.
They show that the tax burden on the Tampa cigar industry is t
only heavy, but is increasing,

THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAKPA. FLORIDA

7 Tampa Cigar Plants Other Costs.
Table 89 shows the cost per M cigars mamnfactred of supplies
used by the Tampa hand plants. This coat has tended to decrease
from 5.20 per H in 1930 to $4.52 per M in 1938. Te cost of box- es cans, labels and bands decreased from$4.46 peV M to $3.64 in this period. The cost of cellophane per M decreased from$.74 to

Some interesting data on the cost of cellophaling are given
in Tables 90 and 91. The first of these shows comparative costs
of cellophaning by hand and machine over a 5-year period. The costs
of cellophane, labor, and electricity required by the machine pro-
cess are given. The average cost of cellophaning by machine in
this plant was $.56 per M, while the average cost of cellophaning by hand was$1.57. The machine cost of cellophanig thus repre-
sents a reduction of 64 per cent in cost for this lant. The other
table gives figures showing comparative costs of o llophaning by
hand and machine. According to the experience of his plant the
hand cost was $1.65 per M, and the machine cost$. 2.
Table 92 shows the advertising expenditures o the Tampa hand
plants, as represented by the percentage of net sales. This was
3.1 per cent in 1938, and was about the, same during this period.
This is a very low'figure for effective advertising expenditu es.
This table likewise shows the bad debt expenses of the plants.
This is very low, being 0.2 per cent of net sales in 1958. In
years prior to that it was higher. This shows a favorable posi-
tion as far as collection of accounts by the cigar: companies is
concerned.
Because of Incomplete records it was Impossible to get some
of the smaller expenditures from the companies.
Table 95 shows a compilation that should be of interest to
"every reader of this Report. This is the estimated cost to the
plants of giving away free smokers to the workers.
Pron the revenue books of all the nineteen haid cigar plants
of Tampa figures were taken showing the number of cigars distri-
buted each year. These were given at the rate of Whree per day
to each male worker in the plants, and are a matter of record in
the internal revenue books of the companies.
Besides these smokers given away at the lose of work each
day, the Tampa workers are permitted by custom to tmoke as many
as they like during the day, made with the company's tobacco. A
great many sources were-consulted in the effort t4 arrive at a
fair estimate of the number of cigars smoked by w~pkers in the
plants. A careful estimate has been made, on the basis of which
it is concluded that each male worker smokes an average of at
least three cigars a day in the plant.
The cost of each of these six cigars was next estimated. The
cigars smoked in the plant and taken home by cigamnakers are fre-
quently made of the most expensive tobacco obtainble, and are
usually extra large in size. The .cigars given aay to the em-
ployees other than cigarmakers at the close of thq day are usu-
ally cheaper. Considering these factors, it is eStimated that
the average cost per cigar given to the workmen is 5 cents each.
Multiplying the number given away each year by th&a price gives
a total annual cost of $403,144 for this period. It was$410,657
at the beginning of the period, rose to $487,105 in 1929, and de- clined to$332,070 in 1958.
The conditions surrounding the smoker practice are discussed
elsewhere in this Report. It is important-to notp here that this
cost to the Tampa hand plants has been approximately $400,000 annually. 8 Tampa Cigar Plants Enployees and Wages. According to information furnished by the Tampa hand cigar OPRMFITwMIu MF IyJ@ Y* it L@ WA T plants, therm We employed in thee plant- ca Jly 1, 159, persona This is 96.9 per cent of the total employed in the ta in 1926, 84.S pr aset offthBBm -plotsd in the plants in peak year, aM U5.86 p49 eant of these aoyerd la 19S, the of lowest rnligmat. hm figt~mu aeft o7ly to the .aiae hand plant iMU att6dit I this a m ayj at not to mn other plants in i el- th* m p It earw. 1umnt in hose plants 6,283 in 19M, se as hbig .h T M Ib 19, and dropped to 5,268 in 1SM. thioe fitgree are show n Table 94. Of thu total eaploees Sa the Tamps plants, 51 per cent women and 40 pa seat are M at the present tim. The ber of worm has been inoawr in in the pueat in resent yar, Efforts go Ad*e to gst Sanot figure* oooar l this trind,. it was fotad that, pri r to the introd tion or the sooial a ty taxes, no OpaMn tioa of tle ma and wa. n m mas m in the recorAs. In may plants, prior to the latrodnoteoa of a Ital - rity, no zmradwmm kept or the name of the worked, identif Ion being made entlr2ly by nse. The officials of mat of the t stated that th M= r of oan employee in their plants as orea sng. ohidfldPy the oasgklar in delftzmt. It theip e time the mam' or m and of in n lU dpart t oa the t is exactly eqMl. -hn m o.ilag in the plants i doe by women.. Sh waroMhs eigaed In bsandring -ad osll a& amn t entirely worea as wel. 4 pea coet of tw office foroee other a eloepse MIea a forsma, he lperS, *legInaaQXlect , packers atIh-lappeia m r mAsty om. Thp dlstriLutoID of a by oooqptwtlr oi abm in fable 96. In Taba 96 is V=w tte ansange #sir pwa an tib aM hourly ealmagn-of ail aMnoyes in the ba ar pat% a, excluding the effm tnee ad 6tfI1oi641* he ae ahwn by months, B S2 ta*ka by the proee ast e aninag the payroll each plant: to a typleal e h f, each mouth in the period 1958 Jamnop 530 ho aarge weekly eag of Tampa cigar eea is -II, 6, eM thae avege hearly wag 00.39. The highest ly and holy earnings wre in October an the lowest in, according to ti ts bl. mxlthly ra gaof tea6h weo r -were diffi to get, beanuse of inauffieles payroll data relate days waced&, In Table 97 Is hoae the *. rate* paid undsr the Spani hand arste~ t I 194 a; d .190 The late i the avma m o are$1.00 loes p 1i the^ *h pnah hai ethred h abad
rates aromMd y les thn these ft p the Bavaaa sold,
diffnetgbSll. tr- (1.60 e.s50o r Ir 'the rate. ptti
makers ona bn0i H earhines is 0.90 pTe r.
Table 96 g1ved the average weekly -N u of otgarnkera ua
he diffe at processes, and of other Wo: ita the pl nte,
twelve-oa th period fro Jly, 19S8-*ae. 1939. The average
all cigarlemih in the Tama hand plants during this peroSe
$13.86. mft oMhae. operaes got an average of$16.88 weekly
the ha4i mold operators $14.62 the workers using the competit system 018.91, the patna ha d wekrAn S13.63 and the wM on the mita-bunae, bmed-rolled prooema 6j" . Peaft'e reeiwv B4.,66 weekly, eolooters S8.90, benders .007 and strSfea 09.06. I oaideridwag these wage it Anmt bt bered hatf the' plate n or nt speating a foiull fitveday week, conaiselazr less, part of th time. SPeoentage distribution of eigarmaker by presetoes shown in-t 90. Prea this it is seen that 48.8 per at -t Ploysd in the 'old iprooaes. 7.1 per sent Sa the miaoine hand-relled proooes, as BU.7 per oent a the Spanish hand with a vea al Muchae uag aehines aMd th eaepetititv 5a. Aaording to t2e figures owa for ithee grafpse the group aecounta for the largest output in option to its the mnehine-bumhed, -ha-olled ounp the next, the cobipetiti workers the third the mold workers the fourth, and the Spanis workers the lowest. TBE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIbA 9 Tampa Cigar Plants Costs of Different Procesles. In tne survey of the cigar industry of Tampa ie cost records of the plants were carefully checked to determine the labor cost per N cigars by the different processes, and the ocst of the dif- ferent operations. Twelve sample weeks were selected from each month from July, 1938 to June, 1989, inclusive, an4 the labor cost and earnings of each worker studied for these perlids. Table 100 shows the average labor cost per M cigars per work- er to'be$13.50. A comparison of the labor cost uJder the differ-
ent hand processes is interesting. With the Spanish hand process
the labor cost per M cigars was $24.89. With the iand mold process it had been lowered to 917 94. With.the competitive system it was lowered still further, to 15.23. The short fillet cost per I with the bunching machine and hand rollers was$7.99 pet M, while with
the automatic machine it was $2.04. For this period the labor cost.per M for stripping was$1*34,
for selecting $0.75, for packing$1.69, and for bang, $0.56. The cost figures contained.in this table, be based on ac- tual operations, indicate that the Spanish hand sy en of king cigars is the most expensive of any, that the handold system is much more economical, and that the competitive ays has a cost advantage over both of these. It also shows the v low labor cost of producing short filler cigars with an autoatic machine. Table 101 shows the productivity of cigarmakete using the different processes. The figures in this table wete taken from sample weeks in each of the twelve months, July, 1l38-June, 1939, and the production totals of every worker working 4 fall week added for these periods. According to these figures the productivity of the Spanish hand worker was 512 cigars per week, of the hand mold worker 812 cigars per week, and of the worker using the competitive systemm 910 cigars per week. For the short filler cigars the worker sing the machine- bunched, hand-rolled process made 1,576 cigars and the worker on the automatic machine, 8,137 cigars. The index number at the foot of the table denotes the relative productivity of the different processes. The mold method is 159 per cent as productive as the hand method, and the competitive, pro- cess 178 per cent as productive.The automatic machine is ten-fold as productive as the mold method, and five-fold astproductive as the machine-bunched, hand-rolled process. This table shows the mold system to be more productive than the Spanish hand, and the competitive system to beomore productive than either one, on long filler cigars. It also s-ows the high pro- ductivity of the automatic machine for short fillet cigars. The figures in Table 101 show the actual productivity of ci- *gamakers in Tampa during a 12-month period. However as most of these weeks did not include a full forty hours, a *ore exact basis of comparison is presented in Table-102 which was compiled to show productivity and earnings for exact hours, 8-hour yays and 40-hour weeks. On account of incomplete plant records, it was impossible to get these figures from all of the plants, but the ones included are among the most representative of the Tampa han# plants. These figures indicate that cigarmakers under the Spanish had method have a productivity of 13.55 cigars per hou*, 106.8 cigars per 8-hour day, and 554 cigars per 40-hour week. Workers using the hand mold method have a productivity of 20.44 ciga4s.per hour, 163.1 cigars per 8-hour day, and 817.6 cigars per 40-hou* week, Workers making cigars by the machine-bunched, hand-rolled process have an output of 42.58 per hour, 340.6 per 8-hour day, an# 1,703.2 per 40-hour week. The ratios between the.productivity.iof the different methods do not vary much from those in the precediNg table. This table also shows the hourly,daily, and.eekly earnings of cigarmakers engaged in the different processes, and likewise the earnings of packers, selectors, banders, and strippers in the plant' O RrAnm U s Sf.s or TA MPA CI7CAR PI SrS Taest rtpifn tktn frtS Ve ooeaHflsE r t- Tu- hi plants, fall to tow the real msplorlaty of the Optl tive tern for long filler aiar, ad the mta.tip mophbae for sh filler otgar The ha plants using tin- owam tin ltem doing it on A* wag ll *sal* with tfotUtis h tat do not mit a fll test of it. WsOC Ovttf. k winf, the plaut a automatia shine bahm omnl a few of 'them sat hve not ha 1 for a Va lai per f amo r et prOared to get the full productiyw frS tllM. '( : ~ i 1 -1 I :-) - Part V RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CGAR INDUSTRY Of TAMPA 1 System of Manufacture. It is felt that the cigar manufacturers of Tapa should have the right to use any system they desire in their plants. It is a cardinal principle of sound economics and American business that the management of a business should determine its policies and methods of operation. Once this principle is abandoned, any economic system based on free enterprise and competition is doomed. Government regulation has encroached more and more on this princi- ple,.and has made its application difficult. There has been nothing in the findings of this survey to indi- cate that the cigar manufacturers of Tampa are not capable of se- lecting satisfactory manufacturing processes and putting them in operation. It is believed that their judgement and decisions in such matters should be unquestioned by labor or any other group. A number of Tampa manufacturers would like to use the system that has been used very successfully in certain other areas, notably New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, termed the "competi- tive" system. It was explained in several sections of this Report. It is recommended that the competitive system of cigar manu- facture be permitted those Tampa manufacturers who want to use it, and that it be considered as including the Lieberman bunching machine or its equivalent, with or without molds (open or closed), with or withoitt suction tables, and with or without thimbles. This would be a true interpretation of the competitive system as used by the plants in the northern area, which are the chief competitors of the Tampa cigar companies. An Arbitration Award by Mr. Carl R. Schedler, of the United States Department of Labor, on February 24, 1938 set a wage rate scale for the competitive system in Tampa, which scale corresponded with that in use in the northern area. The rates used by Mr. Schedler wern based on a field investigation of the northern plants by the United States Department of Labor, the report on which was published December 4, 1937. The present cigar survey included a personal check on the wage rates used in the northern plants. These plants were visited by the Director of the Survey for this purpose, and to observe opera- tions and general conditions in them. It was found that the pres- ent rates do not differ much from those in effect at the time of the Jabor Department's investigation, some small changes having been made. It is recommended that the wage rate scale for the competitive *system of cigar manufacture, as contained in the Arbitration Award of the United States Department of Labor of February 24, 1938, be followed by the cigar industry of Tampa,. in those plants using the competitive system of manufacture. Likewise, that the method of manufacture with the use of the drum mold, known aq the "Tampania" system, be accorded the same wage rate scale. It is believed that with the use of the competitive or Tampania system of manufacture, the production costs of the Tampa plants could be reduced about 25 per cent, and the earnings of the workers could be increased 20-40 per cent, provided the same de- gree of care is given to the preparation of the tobacco, the same economies are applied, and the same cooperation received from the workers, as in the plants in the northern area. Table 12, in Part II, illustrates the comparative superiority of the,competitive system over the Spanish hand and hand mold methods, The figures shown in this table seem to indicate conclusively that the introduction of the competitive system of cigar manufac- ture to Tampa would be of great benefit to both the manufacturers and the workers. In its beginning the competitive system might "RCOWMU)ATIONS FOR TTE TAMPA CIGAB INDDUSSRY result in the displacement of some workers but It is believe that these could be reenployed later on. Possibly other tao the plants miht be found for some of them. If the competitive system is brought to Tampa, adequate ing of the workers in the use of the system is necessary. A - ing school for the workers engaged in the process might be ad able. - It is essential to the proper operation of the competition system that more attention be devoted to the preparation of th o- bacco than 1a done at present in the Tampa plants, and that it in a condition entirely suitable for the high productivity ex od of this system. Also, that other economies in the plants of - ern cigar companies using the system be introduced into the T plants, in connection with it. 2 Technological Improvements. It is recommended that the Tampa cigar manufacturers inve - gate the possibility of installing mechanical devices in their plants for various operations that can be performed satisfacto y and at a lower cost by such devices. First among these are the automatic machines, which make entire cigar. As has been explained in Part II, t-ese are of types, long filler apd short filler. The long filler machine used extensively in northern plants on 5 cent cigars, End to extent on 10 cent cigars, but rarely on higher priced cigars. is adaptable to domestic and Sumatra wrappers, but in the opin of experts, is not very suitable for Havana wrappers, It ia doubtful whether this long filler machine will ever be used to appreciable extent in the Tampa Havana cigar industry. The short filler machine is used at present by some Tamp companies on Clas A cigars, selling for 5 cents and less. It widely used throughout the rest of Florida and the nation for cigars. The coat of manufacturing of'Class A cigars by the sh filler machine is so much less than by other methods that it i strongly advocated that Tampa manufacturers adopt machines for their Class A production. The semi-machine processes could be d advantageously for the Class C or medium priced cigars and pos y the higher classes. Table 101, in Part VI of the Report, showing the comparati productivity of the machine and hand methods, should be convi evidence as to the economy of such a process. Machines woald also permit a more economical use of tobac enabling two Or three cuts to be made from tobacco leaves inst of one by the hand methods. Next to the short filler automatic machine, the method of making Class A cigars by the bunching machine with hand rollers is most economical. The majority of the Tampa plants use the chine-bunched, hand-rolled process to some extent on the low pr cigars. The table just referred to bsows the cost advantages of th bunching machine and hand rollers over the processes other than e automatic machines. This process is recommended for Class A c s where it is not possible to install the automatic machines. It Is aJso recousended that machines for stripping the wra r and binder tobacco be installed in the Tampa plants.* hese mac es can be operated satisfactorily, and at a soh lower cost than old method of tripping by hand. The comparative coat of madhi stripping and hand stripping has been given in Part II. Machines for putting cellophane wrappers and bands on the ars are also advocated. One machine, requiring the services of one operator, can perform both of these functions. Its cost pe :lgars is much less than when these operations are done separate D1 hand. These comparative operating ooats are shown in Part I Ind in Tables 90 and 91, Part VI. Mechanical devices other than those mentioned may be found THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA desirable in the plants, to promote efficiency and economy. Tampa cigar manufacturers would do well to investigate toe possibilities of these. Where mechanized devices can be economically utilized, their adoption is usually advantageous. It is only by making full use of such modern scientific aids to production that the Tampa ci- gar industry will be.able to keep abreast of the national industry. 3 Advertising and Selling Methods. Along with improved production methods, the cigar industry of Tampa is sorely in need of effective advertising and better sales methods. Efforts should be made to help revive the Tampa cigar industry through advertising. There are three principal ways in which this might be done. First, for each Tampa plant to advertise its indi- vidual brands independently of the other companies; second, for all the cigar plants in Tampa to Join together in A campaign to advertise Tampa-made cigars, without reference to the brand of any company; and third, for the Tampa cigar companies to join with ci- gar companies in other parts of the United States in a nation-wide campaign designed to popularize and increase the smoking of cigars. In connection with the use of all of these, education of the pub- lic through indirect means is needed. Examples of ways in which this could be accomplished would be through the use of press re- leases, magazine articles, pamphlets, and radio taaks containing information about the cigar industry, prepared in in interesting manner. All of these plans have merit, but it is believed the first "should be tried before the latter two. Joint advertising should be given due consideration, after an effective indivi ial advertising campaign has been launched by each Tampa company. This advertising should be vig&oous and susta ned. It is suggested that the cigar companies consult professional advertising firms with national standing as to the type of advertising to use. It would be a mistake to proceed without advice in~ma advertising program and likewise a mistake to go to mediocre advertising agen- cies. The best professional advice should be secured to help the industry, while there is yet a possibility of reviving it. Advertising of cigars by the Tampa companies aipht be of the outdoor variety, with the use of signs, billboards, posters, store- front attractions and the like. It might likewise be through the medium of publications, such as newspapers, magazines, trade journals, and the various periodicals that reach large groups of potential smokers. Radio advertising should be ex ellent, reaching millions of listeners. Displays in the showcases of retail deal- ers are held to be most effective in influencing the choice of consumers. A liberal program of canplimentary samples to potential customers might bring results. These cigars would have to be dis- tributed in packages of at least three, as a Federal statute pro- hibits the complimentary issuance of one cigar in a sampling cam- paign. Many other means of modern advertising are available to -the cigar manufacturers of Tampa. Besides individual advertising, there should be a certain amount of joint advertising of Tampa made cigars, participated in by the cigar manufacturers and possibly by the City of Tampa as well. This should be in the nature.of calling the attention of the people of America to the fine qualities of genuine Havana ci- gars, that are made in the center of the Havana industry of this country. No individual brands should be stressed In this type of advertising, although the leading brands of each Tampa manufacturer might be listed. This program should be financed largely by the cigar manufacturers, on a pro-rata basis, based on value of output. The City of Tampa might help in advertising the product of its largest industry, which supports about one-third of its population. For instance, two daily programs advertising Tampa cigars could be RICOIMENDdTIONS FOR THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA sent out from the Tampa radio stations, one in the morning or noon, and the other in the evening. A popular effort might be de by the civic clubs of Tampa to increase the smoking of Tampa c ra in this area and throughout the nation. The cigarmakers union .in the city recently sent out appeals to union members through the United States to buy Tampa cigars. This commendable effo could be followed by similar ones by the unions, which should helpful. Direct mail campaigns embracing lists of prominent le throughout the country, containing the opinions of other promI t people as to the merits of Tampa-made Havana cigars, should be effective, as Americana are easily influenced by what well-kn people say. If the people of Tampa get solidly behind the att t to advertise Tampa-made cigars, it would be of great help to cigar companies in their efforts directed toward this end. The third form of advertising that might benefit the Tam cigar industry could be engaged in only in collaboration with other cigar companies in the country. This type would stress smoking of cigars, in the attempt to increase the habit among American people. Nothing has ever been done along this line, it would probably be difficult to get the cigar manufacturers agree to it. Excellent results were accomplished by the ciga e industry through this method, which was partly responsible for enormous increase in cigarette smoking since the World War. To increase its sales the cigar industry needs to popular cigar-smoking among fashionable people in the country. If the ts at social gatherings could be induced to offer quality cigars their guests, instead of cigarettes, it might help. If social prominent men were seen in public smoking cigars, it might lik se help. If the popular movie stars of Hollywood were to smoke c a in their pictures, instead of having these show cigar smoking by underworld characters and laborers, a great deal might be a complished for the cigar industry. Popular radio campaign mi likewise be conducted for this purpose. Many other means of larizing cigar smoking in America could be used, if the cigar manufacturers of the country would join together in this mov . Any advertising engaged in by Tampa manufacturers should on a sustained basis, not merely for a short period. The results from advertising might not be realized quickly, and a suffice y long period should be devoted to an advertising program to giv it a fair trial. A sensible method of financing advertising would be to se aside a portion of the savings from plant modernization for th purpose. Besides advertising, the Tampa cigar companies should imp e their methods of selling. For many of the companies these are the same as were used generations ago. Very few of the cigar panies have up-to-date, efficient selling organizations today. thorough reorganization of many of these is needed. A careful study of the selling methods used by successful American compa should be valuable in solving this problem. The Tampa manufacturers should make their cigars longer I e lower and medium price ranges than they are now being made, facturers in other sections of the country are offering longer ars for the same price as the Tampa companies. It is realized tha e Tampa plants would face higher labor costs if this were done the present labor scales, but some sort of arrangement should worked out with the unions to permit the production of the sa size cigars at the same labor cost as in competing plants. O wise, the salesmen marketing Tampa-made cigars face a serious i- cap. In connection with the effective selling of cigars, there one condition in the industry that should be corrected. Cigar. dealers, both wholesale and retail, do not pay sufficient atte n to keeping 'the cigars in the proper condition. They are allow to dry out, instead of being kept moist and fresh. A high qual cigar, selling for a high price, may prove a disappointment to 82 TE CIGAR iS ivSr OF TA PA, FLORDA purchaser if it is stale. The manufacturer of this cigar, who probably devoted a lot of effort to insuring its hLgh quality, would very likely suffer from its poor condition en it reached the consumer. Cigar manufacturers ,should pay more attention to this merchandising problem. 4 labor Relations. One of the things that has retarded the cigaBr industry of Tampa has been the continual wrangling between the workers and the employers. Points of difference between then e av ari.en con- stantly, and instead of being settled promptly and atisfaotarily, have been argued pro and con for weeks and months. The longer the arguing continued the more-heated it usually beo until soon a trivial.grievance assumed the proportions of a sjor issue in labor relations. Prolonged battles have been foug over minor differences that should have been settled shortly after they arose. As an example of the time consumed in these indust al debates over matters arising in the plant, it has been men oned that the committee of manufacturers and workers established to settle dis- putes held 267 meetings lasting 497 hours in the lendar year 1958. This is a situation that appears inexcusabl in any in- dustr is recommended that minor differences arin in the el- gar plants of Tampa be adjusted in the plants iu lately after their occurrence. In this procedure the company d be repre- sented by the foreman and/or other officials, and workers by the union representative in the plant, commonly known s the "shop collector" because he collects union dues in the p nt. Inci- dentally, the term shop collector should be haed-to another denoting a larger sphere of activity than merely c lleoting union dues. This individual is the representative of th unions in the plant, and he should have the authority to assist the settle- ment of plant disputes, when and where the dispute occur. This prompt settlement of differences in the plants at e time of their occurrence should go a long way toward ell ting & major source of friction between workers and employers. The.question might be asked as to what proce e could be followed in case the parties were unable to agree n the plant concerning the settlement of the dispute. In such a situation where the controversy could not be settled in the ilant in twenty- four hours it should be sent to the regular empl r-employee board set up to handle disputes. However, it is hped that a genuine eff to settle such matters in the plant would be made. Major isSues that might come up between the es and manu- facturers should be settled as speedily as possible by the joint poard establi ed for that purpose. Both of these parties owe it to their.respe tive groups and to the industry to maintain. mica- ble relations and adjust difficulties fairly and p aptly. It is trusted that these differences will alw ys be settled without recourse to any outside agency. However, o take care of a possible situation in which an issue had not be settled, it is recommended that any controversy between the loyers and em- ployees in the Tampa cigar industry remaiing une tled for a period of two weeks be referred to the United Sta~ Department of Labor for arbitration, both sides agreeing to acce the award. The Department of Labo should be requested to ass gn an arbitra- tor to the case and have him prepared to take tes ony and hear the case within two weeks from the date of the re est for arbi- tration, his decision to be handed down as soon a er the hearings as is practical. Concerning the arbitrator, it is believed that both sides should have the right to indicate their preference in advance of his selection, and the Department of Labor should ,as nearly as possible, endeavor to select a representative .eetsng with the ap- proval of the respective sides. The practice of t American A:bitration Association mi'ht be followed in regard to this. This Association submits a panel of selected arbitrator* to the two L RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRX CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA Irties, who agree an one, if possible. If no agreement is reaoh ich party is inst eoted to cross out the name of ary persona ,cted to and to number the remaining ones in order of preferene *om these remaining name the appointment is ma*e. In the Tampa cigar industry it would be advisable to have 1 agreement providing that, pending the hearing of the case and Le decision of the arbitrator, there should be no lockout by any Iployer or strike called by the unions. In connection with the proposed modernisation of the cigar Industry of Tampa, it is believed that an agreement should be ide providing that old workers in the plants be given preference Sthe assignment of workers to new processes. Por their part,' ich old workers should give full and complete cooperation to the w processes. The situation in the Tampa cigar plants by which the work ha ien staggered, or spread out among more workers than are neceas Snot satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to the workers, as 1 isults in smaller pay for them. Neither is it satisfactory to iployers, as the surplus workers increase their costs. It is not advocated that this practice be abolished iamediat as this would work a severe hardship on those workers having Ibe discharged. Neither is it advocated that the practice be intained indefinitely. It is unsound economically, working a rdship on both workers and employers, and should be changed as on as it is practical to do so. As soon as these surplus emplo s can be given positions in the cigar plants where they are eded, or as soon as they can find employment in other industries e practice of spreading the work in the Tampa cigar plants shou discontinued. Wage Rates. The problem of wage rates in the Tampa cigar industry is can red largely in the old Cartabon, or schedule of wage rates draw4 in 1910 and still used by the industry, which was explained in' rts I and IV. It is felt that this old price scale has outlived its useful, as and is now a handicap to the cigar industry, instead of a lp. No allowance is made in the Cartabon for changed economic editions, changed production or market conditions, or any ch the country, the community, or the industry. No other example of an industry so restricted as to labor ra known. It is the practice of industries in this country to ha eir labor scales sufficiently flexible to be able to meet chang- g conditions. Both the workers and the management benefit by I ch a policy. The selling price of a competitive product should ay a basic part in the determination of its labor cost. Where ; is principle is ignored an unsound condition exists. Cigar manufacturers in areas other than Tampa, who are can- titors of the Tampa producers, do not have a fixed labor scale Ke the Cariabon to contend with. The rates for individual sire , a be changed with changing conditions, which is an advantage to bh workers and employers. It is recommended that the use of the Cartabon be discontinue the Tampa cigar industry, and in its place there be substitute flexible wage agreement, with rates based largely on the selli Lees of the individual cigars, consideration being given to the sunt of labor involved. This wage scale should be'subject to riation, in its entirety or according to the individual sizes, mutual agreement of the manufacturers and the unions, once each ir. This practice is followed by many large industries. New ses should be permitted at any time with rates determined in these goingg manner. The introduction of this rate system would be a >at help to the Tampa cigar industry. I Another problem.in rates in the Tampa area that needs correc-, )n is the wide differential between the Bavana mold and shade ii 84 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, lOBIBDA mold processes. This was explained in Partgs I an II ml~si. a shown that the differential was established because the~ e t6 discourage the use of the mold %en it came into p omine 'in Tampa shortly after 1910, but did not have this result. The labor requirement for Havana mold cigars ia nly slightly greater than for shade mold, which is caused by the sade wrapper being a little easier to work with, but there is not Inough differ- ence to justify the present wide differential in rate. It is recommended that the present rates for Havana mold ci ara be dis- continued, and a new scale of rates for Havana mold fixed at 10 per cent above those for shade mold cigars. The foregoing rccoomendations concerning wage r eas in the Tampa cigar industry have been predicated on the ass option that - the piece rate system for cigar making will be retained in this industry. Does it necessarily have to be retained? Could ot some form of time wage scale, with stated production bra ts to protect both worker and manufacturer, be drawn up, which would be an i- prdvement over the piece rate system The worker wo d be assured a stated wage by this system, and the manufacturer a niform pay- roll. Under such a system the manufacturers could mlaerncla their plants, install new processes and promote efficiency n every de- partment. With a stated time wage guaranteed, the workers should not be particularly concerned about wage rates or the modernization of the plants. This time wage system might put an en to the dis- putes concerning piece rates, which have plagued the ampa cigar industry for so long. 6 Internal Economies in the Plants. r There are a number of economies that should be pt into the Tampa cigar plants, if these are to be operated as ef ciently as those in other competing centers. A trip through s of the modern cigar plants up north should convince Tampa mnfaotuea as to the possibilities for economies in their plant i It is recommended that every cigar manufacturer foreman in Tampa, together with several of the moat intellige t worker in each plant,' go on an inspection trip through the foll ing t standing cigar plants a other areas: the two hand pntof the American Cigar Oampaqfin Trenton, the Corona and nt and 0leo- patra; the three hanplants of D. Mil Klein Cigar an, in- New York,Trenton and lew Brunsawik; the long filler ne plants of the Bayuk Cigar Company and the Consolidated Cigar Company, in Philadelphia; and the short filler machine plants of he John H. Swisher and Son Cigar Company in Jacksonville, and th Havatampa. Cigar Company in Tampa. A careful inspection of all he operations in these plants would teach them a lot about cigar manufacturing A few improvements that are badly needed in the Tampa plants will be treated briefly. There are others that are w11-known. It is thought that the accounting systems used bthe oom- panies could be improved. Each cigar company in Ta should keep accounting records complete enough to show every ite of cost in the business, together with production databy period classes of cigars, processes, etc. From thase the costs of dif rent methods of manufacture, types of cigars, and departmental operations could be analysed carefully and compared with standard cost in the industry to determine the relative efficiency of eac operation In the plant. Sales by periods, territories, types of c a, and selling methods should be carefully recorded, so th plenty of data would be available concerning the marketing of t product. A thorough system of accounts and records should be great value to the Tampa cigar companies. It is suggested that the Tampa Cigar Manufactures't.Assoo"tlion engage a firm of certified public accountants, with lng experitaes in cigar manufacturing accounting, to draw up a standard systit of accounts and records for all the cigar companies i4 Tampa, and I RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA 85J install this in each plant. There is no adequate check on the material used in the Tampa plants, as was shown in Part II. The wrappers and binders are counted when issued to the cigarmakers, but the filler is not weighed. If there is much carelessness on the part of the Cigar- makers in handling the filler tobacco, a serious loss can accumu- late for the plant over a period of time. In industrial plants of all kinds throughout the United States. materials are checked when issued to the workmen. In northern cigar plants all filler issued to cigarmakers is weighed. They receive enough for a stated quantity of cigars, and if they are careless and waste it, the matter is very evident. This results in care being taken with the filler, as well as the wrappers and binders. All other material issued to the workers in northern plants is carefully checked as well. The loss from waste tobacco is very small in these plants, whereas it constitutes a consider- able item of cost for the Tampa plants. It is suggested that Tampa cigar manufacturers follow the practice of weighing filler and checking all material issued to the workers. It would be advisable likewise to have a closer check on the. tobacco in the processing stages. The tobacco could be handled more carefully in the blending, stripping, and casing operAtions in the Tampa plants. - In the efficient cigar plants in the north when the wrappers are stripped, the right and left hand leaves are kept in separate pads. The rollers are trained to use either a right hand' or a .left hand leaf. Half of them work on right hand leaves and half on left hand leaves. In this way they acquire more speed and a higher productivity than if they had to change constantly from one to the other. This is simply a case of the division of labor principle being given a practical application. It is suggested that the plan of separating the right and left i hand leaves and having workers roll one or the other exclusively be followed in the Tampa plants. It was shown in Part II that in the packing of cigars in the Tampa plants under the old Spanish system two workers are used. One worker, called a picker, separates the cigars into a large number of piles by color, and the other, known as a packer, puts . them into the boxes. This is a very elaborate and expensive pro- cess,,as the minute subdivision of the cigars into more than fifty piles takes much time. It is not believed that more than a handfullp out of thousands of cigar smokers in-the United States, could tell the difference between the majority of these shades of cigars. It was likewise shown in Part II that another system of pack- ing known as the American method, is used in northern plants and by the machine plants of 'lorida. This process requires one pack- er instead of a picker and a packer, and has a cost about one-third that of the Spanish system. The cigars are divided first into six piles, after which they are further subdivided by color just before being put in the boxes. It is recommended that the Americanmethod of packing be used in the Tampa hand plants. The method of inspecting cigars in use in the Tampa plants is costly. As was seen in Part II, the custom is followed of having several special employees go around with small trucks on Which are laced several trays on racks. At the end of each working day these employees collect the cigars made by each workman from the workbenches, and take them to the foreman's table for inspection. If any cigars are defective the foreman will call this to the attention of the workman making them on his regular round of he cigarmaking room, which is -made the following day just prior found the workers' benches but once a day, and then he cannot stop t any individual worker's place but once. By this system of in- pection, a workman could make defective cigars a day and a half . before the foreman would examine the cigars and be allowed by custom, to call his attention to defects in them. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TZAPA 8 an average of W400,000 annually for the past 13 years. At a ti when the majority of the plants are barely able to keep going, this would seem to be an unreasonable and unjustifiable expense. It is recommended that smoking in the Tampa plants in work hours, except in the rest rooms, be prohibited, as is done in t northern centers. The rest room exception from the non-smoking rule would permit employees who are addicted to smoking to have several smokes a day without violating the rule. The workers sh d not be permitted to make any cigars for personal consumption wi the plant's tobacco. This non-smoking rule is advocated to reu an unnecessary cost for the companies and to eliminate the fire hazard in the plants. It is likewise recommended that the present free smokers gi to each male worker be reduced from three daily to one daily, f several years, and then the practice be discontinued entirely. t The one free cigar would give each worker an after dinner smoke.:- This tapering off of the smoker practice would seem to be easier on the worker than the immediate elimination of it, by giving him. some time to adjust his smoking habits. Along with the foregoing recommendation is one providing thI4 all of the Tampa cigar plants follow the practice of selling one or two boxes of cigars to each worker at a stated time each week at factory cost. This should permit economical smoking by the workers who desire to do it. There is a big contrast between the Tampa hand cigar plants and the efficient ones up north in the matter of discipline in t plants. In the northern plants no eating or drinking is permit in the working rooms. Employees desiring to eat or drink during working hours are permitted to go to the lunchroom, if there is in the plant, or to the restrooms. Ice-cold drinks are available to the workers, but these must not be consumed in the working ro . The practice of drinking coffee and ice drinks, or of eating. food at the work tables, which is permitted in certain Tampa pl , is to be condemned. In some instances the cigars might be stain or discolored. The practice likewise has the tendency of react against orderliness in the plant, and possibly of encouraging sl enliness and careless work. In efficient American plants the employees separate their wr from outside diversions, giving serious attention to it while th are on duty. This increases their productivity and likewise thel morale and self-respect, as they feel that they are rendering an, efficient service in return for their wages. It is suggested that the sale of merchandise or admission t k- tta or solicitation of any kind, be prohibited in the Tampa plan It is felt that the discipline in the Tampa hand cigar plan could be improved considerably, with benefit both to the workersfd the companies. 8 Customs Appraisal of Tobacco. -m The eigar manufacturers of Tampa have faced a problem for a years in the importation of tobacco from Cuba. This is due to f ty customs regulations, which should be changed. This situation wad x- plained in Parts I and V of this Report. It was seen that when Hayana tobacco is imported from Cuba, e wrapper and filler are mixed together in the same bale, and that e customs regulations provide that the customs inspector appraise tobacco and determine the respective amounts of wrapper and fill in each bale. As the import duty on wrapper tobacco is 41.20, while that on filler is only$.28, this classification plays an import
port in determining the total duties and cost of the imported to -
co to the manufacturers.
The drastic part of the regulations which provides that wheo
as much as 35 per cent of the tobacco in a bale is appraised as
per, the entire bale takes a 100 per cent wrapper duty, has resu d

.II

88 THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA i

in many unfair cases of excessive taxation.
As there is only a difference of degree of te between m
per and filler tobacco, the dividing line between e two Is a que
tion of judgment. It is a matter of record that d ferent custom
appraisers have differed widely in their classific ion of wrapper
and filler tobacco. In view of the great different n the custom
rates for the two, the present practice appears to ive too much
authority to the inspectors, and permits a great quality in tax.
action.
It is recommended that this method of apprasi imported to.
bacco be changed to a more practical and equitable system, under
which duties would be paid only on the amount of paper actually
imported, and the wrapper classification of tobacco in the matter
of quality, would correspond with trade usage.

9 Consolidation of Companies.
It is believed that there are many ways in wh Ih the Tampa
cigar plants could work together to the mutual adv ltage of all.
There are certain materials and supplies which all bhe plants need
in their operations. These might be purchased Joi ly, at a sav-
ing to all the plants. Possibly some of them could be produced
economically by the group of Tampa plants, at a o iderable sav-
ing. Tobacco might be purchased Jointly by the c anies.
Transportation costs might be materially redus by joint
shipments of cigars. Some effort has. been made to o this in re-
gard to Pacific Coast shipments. A freight car wa( sent fro Tau
to the West Coast, with permission to unload at di rent cities
en route. It was reported that a considerable sai was effected
on these shipments. This should be followed up un ila practical
method of handling Joint shipments has been worked ut for all
markets, within the regulations of the Interstate mmee CoMns
sion.
Joint credit facilities might be arranged for the Tampa cigar
companies, reducing their financing costs.
The resources of the companies might be poole4 in various way
which would be helpful and advantageous to all. t
The foregoing business cooperation should be value to all
the companies. However, it is suggested that the ntewcompany re-
lationship go further than business cooperation. is believed
that it would be definitely to the advantage of soa of the smaller
cigar plants of Tampa to have an outright consolidate ion with other
plants. Some of these smaller plants are struggle along, having
difficulty in making a small profit, or suffering loss. Their
sales have shrunk, and their production is not as tficient as it
might be, due partly to insufficient funds with which to keep thea
plant in first-class condition.
If some of these companies would consolidate, it might mean
an increase in sales, as their common sales facili les would be
increased. It might likewise mean a reduction in ] ~ uotion cost,
and increased productive efficiency, through the p oling of joint
facilities. Overhead costs would be reduced great .
Some of the Tampa cigar companies are too smn 1 for the most
economical operation. It is believed that these p nts and the
Tampa industry would be strengthened by a number o consolidations
into larger units.

10 Welfare Work.
Much could be done in the Tampa cigar plants in improving gel
eral conditions affecting health and comfort. The ventilation and
air circulation in practically all of them could b4 improved. The
lihtinG facilities in many of the plants are not es good as they
should be. Some of them present a dingy appearancI inside and it

RECOINMM DATIONS FOR TE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA

is wondered if the interiors of the Tampa plants could not be
ed a light color, to improve their lighting mad general appeal
The seats used by the workers might be ohebked to see if they
as comfortable as they should be. Ice water should be available
all -the workers in the plants. The reatroms should be cle a
sanitary. Where it is paaetical to do so, a oompany cafeeria t
be installed in the larger plants and lunches served at cost to
workers,
Steps taken to improve the plants in the foregoing manner,
so promote the health and comfort of the worera, are urged for
humane and business reasons. Industrial workers are entitled to
satisfactory working conditions, and their work should be more
ductive under sh editions.
It is reeuendetd tbat a radio be placed in each Taspa ci
plant, with reception outlets on each floor where there are
of workers. Good musical programs could be brought to the wor
several times a day in this manner. In the plants of the Amerl
Cigar Company at Trenton, pianos are placed on the working floo
and musical selections played on each for one hour after lunch
day. It is believed the Latin cigar workers of Tampa would ap
ciate music just as much 'as the workers in Trenton,
The position of the hand cigar companies of Tampa with ref
ence to welfare work for their employees, is not the same as for
most American companies. Their workers are mostly Latins, who
strongly unionized, and in addition are members of,various Lati
clubs. Both unions and the Latin clubs render benefits to their
members, principally in the fields of recreation and social div
sion, bit also in health and athletics.
The companies could have medical clinics to examine and
the cigar workers, reading rooms, game rooms, athletic teams,
social events for them, as many American companies do, but it is
doubtful whether the cigar workers would accept these benefits.
is reported from the sources investigated that they would not.
Also, that the unions and the Latin clubs would not look with fa
upon such actions by the employers. If this is true, it is not
gested that the companies do these things. If it is not true, s
of them might be tiied.

11 Surplus Cigar Workers.

The Tampa cigar industry and the City of Tampa have a Joint
problem in the surplus cigar workers now in the Tampa district.
According to estimates made in Part V, there are 5,688 surplus a$gar workers in Tampa. These 5,688 surplus cigar workers constitute a big problem. At the present time the cigar companies cannot employ any more of them because of the state of their business. It is possible that with the modernization of their plants resulting in reduced cost and increased advertising and sales efforts, the business of the' plants would tend to increase. This would mean more Jobs for sa of the workers. However, it is not believed that the cigar com- panies of Tampa will be able to give employment to all of the su plus cigar workers for many years to come, if at all. A trend toward semi-mechanization of part of the Tampa cigar industry an4 complete mechanization of part of it is looked for. If the ciga. workers would learn the semi-mechanized processes, and be recon- 1 ciled to them, there might be steady work at good pay for number of the old workers in the years to come. If they are unwilling to do this, the unemployment situation will grow worse. Very few apprentices are being trained in the plants, so the: total number of cigar workers is gradually decreasing. The young Latin boys and girls are going into other lines. It is suggested that facilities be provided to train the young Latin boys and girls in trades and vocations. It has been mentioned in Part V that at the present time there is one indus- Full Text PAGE 1 , .. . l ,. I . , .. , t r t .. ' ti \ . , ' ' I . . ,..., I ... ,f .. ) I .. . . I .' I I â€¢' , J ./' I , e , r . . f \ .. ' f. . l I I I ' .. ' ' .. ,,. ' . ;.â€¢ ' ... ' I . .. ' t .. .. , .. . , . . r. 'A. STUART CAMPBEi.I ., Director, Bureau of Economic . . ' ' .â€¢ .. I anci B _ . . arch _ . Univenity o_f Flotjda . \ , By . I Univenity of Tampa , .. .. .. .. . . . MA, ' I J t 'â€¢ ' , .. ' ' t , t ' . ,. ' '\ ,. .. Sepleqiber, 1939 . . . , . I ! ' .. " . .._ .. I . a \ \ . ... ' .. . . ' .. . . ! I I I , ' ' ' , I .. ' ,. ' , .,, I . ' . '" I t t , ' ' ... I .. .. .. . t J . ' , . . .. .. .... . \ .. ... .. ' ' I . . ' , . I ' . . .. I PAGE 2 I ' r . . . .. . . . . : . . r . ar .. a , , ' G . . . . . ' ' By A . STUART CAMPBFJ,I ,, .. ' , ' , Ph.D.,' . Director, Bureau of Economic and Business Research .. University of Florida . .. ' ' By Assisted . w. PORTER . McLEN . DON, M.A., Univ _ ersity of Tampa . . Sep te~ber, 1939 .. ' ,. .. ' J , . . ' 1, , ' ... , 1 .. .... . . 't _, -~ .. ? : ... . . .. .. ' ' .. I . . ' . . PAGE 3 . . . J . . . . . . FOREWORD .. . ' . \ J . . . Since i~s eetabl1.shment apout . t,n : ye~r.~ ago the ~ _ eau ot ~co0 r 1 omic and ~1nes s R es earch . , . or ~ the , Vn1v.ers1t7 of Florid$.._ has b~en .= in terested 1n all o f the industne s 1n the state. . It has n de sur. . ... . . veys of s eve _ ral of ~he leading ones . rt - â€¢~lco m ed the opportunity ' o f inve s tigating cond itions . in the cigarindustry , , one o r the old_ . e at i;n . the stat . e, now sufter.ing f'.rom v~io:us nialad _ ju s~enta and . p ro b lems . Tlie Ta m pa ~rea. representing . lar g ely the Havana produQers, ha s been most. sevePely af f ec t-ed b y these oonditiona~ ~e 11i4'.tatryin othe~ cities . of_ nor ida, . such ~a Jacksonvi . ~ 1~, Quiticy,, Bartoâ€¢et c ~ , is m ostly _ mechanized _ anu~ what wa8 wra~ ~1t h , t h e industry and what measures could be . taken to coriect the di,.. f i cu ltiea . . . . . This co110,11 -t;tee was .formed in the . late spring ot' . th . is year b, Pr e si dent Sweeny o.f the Ta . mpa Chamber of Co1~011eree for . the purpose of a t t empting to .. :fina_ a solution :for . the proplema conrronting . the c i g a r indua:try. T?ie . ~embe~s we~e carefully chosen ~om amr>ng prom ine nt bus1nes . s and . _ c1v1c lead~rs ~f t h e city. None of them is conn ecte d with . the cigar 1~dustry in any capacity. The members or the c o nn11i . ttee are: liessr~ . Cari n. Brorein., . ChaiPttian, D. B. McKa..7, J . A . Gr1f.f1n, E. P. Tallia.ferro., J. A . , Sweeny., . Ralph Nicho~on, Ray B~ Cr~ll~; and F. J Gannon. . . . . After advising with both workers ~nd manu.faoturers . thia com mit tee con~luded that an independent and impartial study-~~ all fact s and factors af.fe . ot 1ng present condit~ons would be of great h el p . to . t~e indus _ tr,. . ~o this end . tli~ Bureau of E9on0111J _ o and Bu.s in~ss Rese&.%'ch . p . f the University of Floridaw~s requested to make a fact-finding survey of the cigar industry 1 n.. Ta1,ipa, t o ~na l y z e the facts ,a nd include reccmuuendations for the good of the ind u st ry . .. . . . . . . . . . It is felt t}_lat this . survey . should be . i:s ~ngular1y helpful :1n tha t it is entirely disinterested. The 'University bas n~ . cor,x1ection with this industry Jlnd 1 ts sole ob ject i ve 1 . s . to render what aid 1 t ... can to an ~9rtant Florida aeti;vl.ty. Likewise none of the be r s of the . etaf~ making the survey _ are connected 1n any way . with t h e ci g ar industry, or have any !J} ter~st in it~ out . sid~ of the present work. . :. . . . . From beginning to end the sur:vey was mede in a atrietly impar tia l and . failmanner. All the facts available were gathered t'rom . r elia ble sources, and checke d an~ :rechecked -' for ~ccuracj. I t i~ re a l i zed that some of th~ facts pres . anted C,:eal frankly with customs in th e indust:ryand wi th characterist _ ics of indi vid11a ls coinpr1s1~ its va~ious groups. Tnie was not d9ne ~o emba~rass anyone, but to poin t out that . there is a direct and important connection b etween , the se cust oma \ ~d ch~raoteri~ tics . and certain problen,s of the in d u st ry. _ In fact ~t is O?lly by ohang~ne; some of th~ custQ111b,l'y p r ac tices that the proble1;11s o~n be s~lved. . .. . . In th~ Sl.WV8y the ~f~ice !Uld plant _ record a of all the . compa nie s comprising the T~mpa C1g,a r ~n~aetur~rs' A~so~1a.t . ion wozâ€¢~, 1n s p ec , ted ca:Mt-u117. The nineteen cmuran1 es in . the Associat i on are: A. S ant aella and Oo . i, ~er:fecto ~cia and Bro., ~rad1az-A.nnis and . Co., Gar c'9a and yegal .l!.:~ Reg~nsburg and ~oils, . C . orral., WQdiaka and Oo., Cu esta Rey and Go., Morgan Ci _ ga~ Co., J:ose _ Aran g o and c o., Jlarc_el _ . in o Per~z and co . , Le. Int . egred ad C _ i g ar . Co., Berr . imsn Brc>s. !no., Sal vad:or Rodriguez and Uo â€¢., A1'SD:go and Arango, Lopez., A1vareâ€¢ , 8.Dfl , . . C o ., Preferred Havana Tobacco . Co . ., J. W. Ro p er t a 1 8. Ii d l Sb.n, V i. 1 1: azon . a nq. Oo., JI. Bua ' tillo and Co. . . . . . I l ; t , ' . All , ~f . tne ae c _ ~ntp~nies were . most . h~lpfu L rtm e t _ w brk l,. nisldng av ~ ilahle their .complete r~ool'ds . :for i?iS_pecti~n. The exam 1nation . . . . . . . . ' ' .. . .. ., i

PAGE 4

. ' 11 THE CIGAR INDUSTR Y OF TAMPA, FLORIDA , ... included the ope:rations of each year as :far bao~ as 1925. In most ,. of the plants the r~corda were com:p~ete, but in a few some data per tainl;ng ~o past years ha~ riot been kept. . ~eaidea collecting data from the p . 1ant records of' the cigar comp _ anies, ~ch yaluable information concerning the de velopment and pro1:)leme of . :the industry was aecured f'rom a ser ~es of' interv~ews. T,hese -~re with officials in each of' tlie plants, with leaders and ~embers . of the l~b or groups; with the attorneys for the menu.facturers . and th~ labor un ions; with . the of'ficia l s ot the Cigar Manuf'ac' ' ' tters' Associat _ ion,and with a num~er of' the older ci~izens of' Tamps. not connected with the industry . , who are : familiar with its problems by reason or a close association with ' them over a . period of yea~s. Various developments in the rela:tior1s between the em ployers a~d workers in the in<;lustry were closely~ I~ order to comp~e t~e cigar in4ustnin Tampa with that in the na t _ ion, as l_Ve-l-1 as to note c _ ertain national problems in the . ent _ ire industcy, . an inspection was made of . cigar p . J.,anta in othe~ sect.ions of tlie country. including the important producinlrareas of New Jersey, New _ Yor~ and Pennsylvania . A repre~entative of the : United States Department of Labor a coompanied the director of' the survey _ on this trip. First-hand inforne~ion was secured: 1n this way concerning conditions in these plants, a~d excellent suggestions ror the ope~ation of Ta,np . a. plants. . In the sll+'vey all publis . hed material pertaining to the cigar industry that c-ould be obtained was examined closely. Government . report _ s dealing with . va;rious p~ses of the industry wer~ ~~al.yz~d,, and use was made of thei~ findings. Standard cigar and tobaeoo publi~ations _ were inspecte~. Refer~noe sources were consulted . _ f'or gene~al economic a.at a bearing on T~mpa ~a cigar problem. . As th~re is a serious ~employment problem in T91t1p~, center ing around . a large group of unemJ>loyed cigar wprkera . , tbe ~urvey included an inve~t1gat1on ot this and poss~ble means for its allev . iationi, as w ell as the business probletr1s of the compani~s. , it is felt that the . survey, while not exhaustive~ ~ov~r.~d about all that could be inv.estigated :ui the time and with . the fa cilities available and presents an authentic and fairly comp~ehen~ sive pictur~ o_f the T _ a11tpa. cigar industry. It is sincerely hop ed that efforts . will j:Se made ~o f'Q~low the recomme nda tio_ns g1:ven, which have f'ar their obje , ctive the correction of' serlous probl . eme . . ' in the industry. In fact it can be stated frankly and without exaggeration that, ~less certain cha~s are . made in the Ta rr,ps.. . in dustry, it will . not survive. It has be~n decliniz,.g f'or some years, and will continue to do so unless something is 4one to check the decli ~ ne. The w~y out is , in.6.icated 1 . n this _ Report . . Re:f'usai to take some measures a 1ong thes~ li nes means _ eventual failure tor the , industry . Some plant s _ could survive longer than others, _ but ultir,iate~y all would g~, 1f present condit~ons are maintained. The Report on the . survey is _ divided into seven Parts. and a . ' Appendix containing s~at1stica+ tables. In Part . I the probl~ms of the Tampa ci g ar in~ustry ar.e summed up, so that the reader can gr{:lsp them iixanediately ~n9, re~~ize just whs. ~he si _ tuation is. Pa~t II des _ cribes and explainS cigar manufacturing . p~ocesses~ .. without an understanding of which the . nature of the problems _. and propos~d remedies c ould . not be . comprehended. , Comparative costs of di:f.fe~ent methods o.f memrl' . acture used throughout the Unit ed states are likewise given. Part III deals . with the grQwth of the , cigar industry in the United ~tates, and 1 t~ problE'ms. This is given to facilitate ~n understand~ of what are purely local problAJ!'S of the '.t'am:pa cigar 1ndl1stry-, and ) that are e~c~tered by the> e . nb~r~ indp.~~cy . Part IV traces the development of the Tampa 1n4ustry ;rrom its e arl;iest beginnings to the present time and shoulq. , be of 1.n~er~st to all T& JJ.Pap.s, wh1~ ~art V shows the 1.m portance of the e1gJ..r 1 ip.dustry to the c1 ty. Fart VI explains . the financial results of operations of the Tampa cigar ' plants ror E:sach ye~r back to 1925, w~~n the i.ndustry was prosperous . . It is eloquent at~tisticai testimony as to the necessity f'or improve

PAGE 5

.. , . FOREWORD ' . .. . . . 111 ' ment of' condition~ in Tampa. Part V Il . includes . r ~connnendations ror the cigar i r .. d Li stry of Tampa~ b ased on the st~dy _ _ of condi tion.s in this city and elsewhere . . . The first and: last sections of tp.is . Repor . t thus state . the problems ~ri Tampa and offer s o luti . on~ for them~ . The intervening sections go 1 . nto the s1t . uation fully . . _ _ . In making _ the survey, 10 . 2 stat1s t1cal tables . were prepa red . These pr e sen~ factual data concerning conditions and trends in the cigar industry in Tampa and the Unit e d State s~ Because of the large number o f tnese table . a, it was . considered advisable to place . them a11 in . the Appendix, instead . or t~e body of the Re . . . port. Th e reader of the Reper~ 1~ . re . ques . ted to ~~fer to ' the _ . Appendix for each tabl ' e, Y,hen 1 t is mentio ned . _ The tables are r . , ., n1.1mh _ ered c _ o naecuti vely and can be locat e~ eas1iy . It is desired to acknowledge wi~h . than)cs th~ cooperation ~ the Ciga:r . Conn,11 tte~ of the Tampa Chamber or Connner ce, of 0th . er . . . ci tiz . eris o1: Tampa 8Upply1ng infonnation, of the cigaF mamtf"ac~ . turer~ and their representa tiyes , . of the worker.a . ~nd their . representatives; of . th~ United States Depar . tm~nt of Labor, and o ther Fed e ral dep~rtnients and ~i g ar, associat;1 ons supplying pub. lic at _ ions , . in the making o.f th i~ survey~ Thanks : are li:lcewise _ _ made to the ~ . ampa Chamber of Coinmerce, 1 ~s abl . e se cretary, Mr . G . D . Curtis and his a.ccomodating office force, f . or supplying _ offi c e spaoe and extendin g many ~ourt e sies to the st a:r:r during the survey . . . Menibers of the staff . makin g . the survey include A. Stuart Camp b ell , . Ph . D . , n 1rector, (Uni vers1 ty of . Flor+da . ), w .. Porter .' Mc . Lend o n , 11 . A . , As . sistant . D . irector, (University o'.f Tampa), H~rve Truskett, B . S . and T:ruman Hunter, . B _ . s .. , gr _ adua . te st~dent as s is t a n ta . . ' . Septembe r 1, 1939 . ' . . I ' : " : \ , . . . . . f' . . . 'â€¢ ' . .. . .. . . A. Stuart qampbell w Porter McLendon I ... ' . : ' . . . ' . . .; . I . ' . . . .

PAGE 6

\ . , . ' f TABLE OF CONTENTS . . PART ' l . . PROBLEMS OF THE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY Page . . . l The Bumari Element in . the Cigar Industry of . Tampa .... . 1 . 2 ,!18 . The Cartabon. . . ~.. 4 3 Lack of Mo<;1. . ernizat 1on in the Tampa Plants ; 5 4 Inadequate Advertising by the T~pa Cigar . Companies .-. 6 5 Union . C;ontrol ' of Labor in th~ Tampa . Cigar Pl~ts 6 . , 6 Surpl:u,s 01gar ~orkers in Tampa ... .. ............ . '7 7 Differential Betwe . en Labor Ra.tea for Shade . Mold and , Havana Mold. . . . '1 8 Increased Employment o . f w . oinen in tbe Tamp _ a .. Cigar . Plants. . . 9 ' Cua tom of Fre e Smokers ....... ... . .......... . ............... . . ~--.. ~ lO~ _ i : Qlla.11 ty of Tobacco Used in the Tampa Cigar Plant ' s . 8 8 9 10 10 10 11 12 . . 11Deqlin~ in Cigar Cons11mption : . ~ l2.:. Trend Toward Smokin g Cheaper Ci ga rs . . . 13Co!Il,petiti6n fyom Ma ' chine . Plants. . â€¢. 14-: Competition From Plants Using the Competit . ive System . . . . . . . 'â€¢ . _ isNec . e ' ssity For Stabiiizing Conditions , in the Tampa P . lanta. ' .. . . . . ' . PART II CIGAR :MANUFACTURING PROCES . SES . . ' 1 Compo _ .a 1 t i _ on bf a Cigar . .. . 13 2 :.preparation of Havana Tobacco in Ouba : â€¢. â€¢...... 14 . 3 Sources of" Domes . tic Tobacco . Used in Florida Plants 16 4 _ _. Pro ces sing of Tobacco in the Tampa Plant-a 17 5 Claa.sification . of . Ciga.rrriaking Processes . . 18 6 . Spanish Hand . Process of Cigartnaking â€¢............ 19 '7 Hand .. )told Process of .. Cigarrnaking ;. . ~O . B Competitive P.roces s or Cigarmalcing . _. . 21 . 9 Bunching -Machine, Hand,-Rolling Metho~ ~ !~ . . ~2 10Automatic 1 :Mac};i.ines . . . 23 11Compa.ra ti \te C9sta of Diff:erent Proce sses 24 12Processes Used :i.n the . Tampa Ci gar Industry . 28 pART III GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES , . . . . 1 S~y of . the Problems of the . National Cigar Industry~â€¢â€¢ 30 . 2 Developm~nt of the Cig _ ar Industry 1n the United States . 31 3 Produc~ion an~_9~~sumpt~on of Ci g ars . in . the ~nite~ States 35 ... 4 . .. Foreign Trade,a~ Const1mption of Tobacqo Products 37 5 Comparison of t ... 1 e Cigar Industry with the Cigarett e . !nd u . s try . . ,. '5'!'/ 6 . 0:Rerating Costs and the Results of Operat . ions . 39 . . , . PART IV DEVELOPI , ffil 1 T OF . TI-J.E TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY . . 1 Early History _: in _ Key . West . . . . 2 Establishment and .. Early Progreoo in Tampa . , 3 Business . Qrg9.nization in the Industry. ~ .4 Mi g ration of Tampa . Plants to Ot h er . _ Localities-. .. . ... . ... . 5 Evolution of Employer-EmpiQy. . ee Re+a ttons. . . 6 Orgap.iza tion of Employer~ and Employees . ? Recent Developments in . Employer-Employee Re la t . iv . . ' . . . . 43 . 43 45 . 46 4'7 51 53 . .

PAGE 7

. . . ' . . . . .. . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS t . . . . . PART V . THE IMPORTANCE OF . TBE CI .GAR . INDUSTRY TO TAMPA ~ . . . l Effect of the Cigar Industry on the Growth of _ Tampa 2 Importa:t1on ot Tobac co From _ Cuba ~ .. , . ~;. 3 ... . Adv,uit _ a:ges of ~e11,pa . for . Cigar Manufacturing. _ .â€¢. . , .. ;â€¢. 4 Problem ofUnemp ~oyment in the Cigar Ind\1stry of 'l'an11e. . . . Page 56 . 57 58 60 . . . PART VI . OPERATING . RESULTS OF TAMPA GIGAR PLANTS 1 Scope ot th~ Inv:est1gat1.on ~ 2 The Oiger Industry of . Flo~ida . .. .. ~ , .! . 3 . The Cigar Industry of the Tampa _ Distr.ict .... , 4 Tampa Cigar Pl . ant~ Production and sales 5 T~m.pa Cigar Planti, _ . F1nanc~al _ .Statement~.â€¢.~. .-â€¢ 6 Tampa Cigar Plants _ .,,; . Chie.f Cos~s o~ Pr9.~uct _ l~n: . Labor, Tobaco9, Taxe~ ~ ...... .; . : 7 Ta1rtpa ~igar Plants Ot~er Co:its . .. _ . . 8 rernpa . Cigar Plants -:Empl oyees and Wages .-â€¢ . : ~ . â€¢.~ ... 9 Tanrpa _. Cigar Plants -:Costa of Di:f:fere1;1~ Processes _ . . . PART V.II ' , . . ' , __ . . . . . . . _. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CIGAR INDUS . TRY . op TAJIPA . ' . , . .. . 1 Syateni 0 Manufacture . . . . ~ ~ ---~ !~~ , ~ ~. 2 . . Technological Im.provementa . -. . . ; . ; 3 Advertising and Selling Meth . o~s . . â€¢. 4 911\ La.boi> Relations ........... ...... ;.~ . . . ' . . 5 . Wage Ra ~es . . ..â€¢â€¢.. . . 6 Internal Economies _ in the Plants~ ~ . I ,.:i. 7 Plant Customs ............ , f ,_ I 7" p 8 Customs Appl 'aisal of Tobacco.â€¢~.â€¢â€¢ ........ . ~. . 9 Consol . ida tion of Companies . . 10Wel:fare Work.:-. .... .11S~plus Oigar Workers . : . .. .. . ~. . . .. . , 12U nity . and Cooper . at ion . .. ............ .~ . ; , . . . . .. . , ' . . I . . ' . ' . .' . " . l. ' \ .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . , . t . . ' . , ' ' . ' . . . . ' . ' . . . .. . " .. . . . . 65 64 . 66 68 70 . 7~ . ,,, . 74 76 . .. 78 79 80 ae . 85 84 86 87 -SB 88 89 . " 91 t I . . . . . . ' . t l

PAGE 8

' . , ' . . .. ' . . . ,, ' ' Table 1 Ta b le 2 tra b le . 3 . Table 4 Tabl . e 5 Ta b le 6 Ta b le 7 .. Ta b le a : Ta b le 9 Te. b le 10 . . Table 1 . 1 . Table 12 ... ' Ta ble 13 ' .. Ta b le 14 .. Ta b le 15 Table 16 Table 17 T ab l e 18 ' Table 19 T abl e 20 T ab le 21 T ab le 23 T a b le . 24 Tab le 2 5 ' . T ab l e 2 6 , . . r APPENDIX . (Statistical Tables) . . ' Page ' ' . Perce n ta g e of Long Fille~ and Sliort Filler Cigars . , to Total Pr oduction in the Unite . d States, 95 1920 ' -19.38 , . . " . Prod u ction and Value of Domestic c ig~r Tobacco by Types i n the United State _ s, 1936,. 19 37.-..... .. . . 96 Prod u ction and Va lue of Wrapper and : filler Tobacco ' 97 Growi.i in FloriQ.a, 1933-1937 -/: .,. . . . Classification o.f Cigar M~king Processes Us . ad in the un1t d Sta : t . es, 1939 . 98 Comparati e . A;i e unt . of Hand and Machine Productipn _ of C iga s 1n .f . the United States , 1937 98 Ap p roxi~ate Aif b ~t of ~bor . Required _ t o _ Make One . . Thousa~d Fi ~ e~ce~~ Cigars by Various Manui'ac~. uri n g . . Metho9s in the United States, 1936 . 99 . : Annual . O~r~ting -Co . sts . for Bunching Me.chine~ 1939. 100 Costs of Cigar Manufacture by Four. Ope rator, Long . Fil ler Ciga:r Machine, 1938 . ~ . ;oo Comparative Cost of Manufacture of a Five-C ent Ciga:r l?y the Ma chine Pro cess, Coâ€¢rtbination . . . Machine e nd. Hand Proce sa, and Hand p~o . cess 1 n the . Unit ed States, 1936 . 101 Automatic ci _ gar Machines Used in Florida, . Clasa1.:. . fled . by Cities, 193~ . 102 Labo~ Wage R~ t e~ for Oigarmaking, Used with the Competfti iie S7s tem in Cigar Factories in New . Jersey, . New York and Pennsylvania, 1939 102 Compari . son of Labor Cos . ts and Earnings of Cigar.. . 1J1a~ers Under . the Spanish Hand, Hand Mold, and Competitive . Syst~s . of Oigar _ Manufacture with . . a T~n. Cent . Cigar . , 1939 . . . â€¢.. 10~ Dtstr.ib ~ tion or c1gar : Machines in the Leading C~g~ Producing . States, 1938. 103 Average . Hourly Returns to Han4 C1gar,nekers and . Machine Opera tors in . n1t . .feren t Fact orie a, 1938.. 104 N i mtber of Ci g ar M8:llufacturers in :the United States . .. . 1910-19 .. 3 . 7. _ . ~ . . ~ . ..... , .. â€¢. 104 Number of Cigar . Factories with Olaesi:fied . Output i n the Uited . States, ~05 Prcid'Uct . 1on of Cigars For Consumpt . ion in the . . . United State . a, 1863-i938 .................. ,, ........ 106 Tax-Paid W i thdraw a l of Cigars For Coneumpt _ ion . by Clas sea in . the Un~ ted States, . 19 20-1938. .. . . 107 . Tax-:Paid Witbdra--.al of Cigars For Cone,1mpti on by Classes i n t~ f1 United . States, 1~20-1938. Per. cent~ g e of Cl~s-se.s to Annual Total. . 108 \ Seas onal Indices of C o ns'l1mption of Cigars in the U nited Sta t es , . .J. 1930 :.. 1938 ,. . 108 N1.1mbe~ or Concerns Manufacturing Cig9:rs Exclusively, by :principal St a tes . , 1929-1937 ~.... 109 Tax-Pa :td w1 thdrawal o.f Large and Small Cigars Eor Conawn~tion in Speciric te~ding States, 1920, . 1925, 1930-1937 ~. .. . 110 Pereen . ta g e of . Total Withdrawals . of Large Ci g ar s For C onsumptio n . i n Leading States, 1920, 1925, . 1930 . ..-193'7. . â€¢... 111 Avera g e Retai l Prices of Cigars in . 32 Cities, sp ec i;f.ied Mbnth s, 19 20. 1938 1~2 . . U nited States Im p o rt . a a n d Receipts of . Tobacco Pr odu cts, From No n contiguous Territ o ries, . Produ c ts a n d . C o untr i es, ' Fis-cal Yaars, 1912-1937. 113 . U ni t ed : Sta t es Ex po rts a nd Shipme n ts of Tobacco Product ~ . to Nc,nc ont . i guous Territ o ries, 1909-1937 114 . ' .

PAGE 9

.. . . . TA BL.E OF CONTENTS . . ' I _ Page . ' Table 27 Est1l"ated Cons11mpti(?n of Cigars a~d C~garette s in . _ Europe,_ 20 Count~ies, 1920-193~ : 1 , ]5 Table 28 Per , Capita Co~.11u11>tion . of Cigars and Ciga~ettes 1n . . ~pe,m 00~1ntries, Compared Wit~ . The Un i t ed . States, 1932 _ -. . 115 . Table 29 Per C~pi ta Co~s,i11aption : of Cigars and Cigarettes in the United states, 1900-19~8 ll6 Table 30 . Value of the Prod:uc . ts of the Cigazt . and C ' igarett~ Iustries, . ~nd . Their Percentage of the Value , of Total Tob~cco Products in the United Stat . es, 1909-1937 ................................ 117 . . .. . Table 31 , Number of Wa g e Earners . iri the Tobacco Products ' Group in the U~ited Sta~es, 117 Table 32 Average Weekly . Hours Work~d in the Tobacco Pro~ d:u ct~ Ind11str~es (?f th~ United S~atE)s . , 1919-1936 118 Table 33. . Expendi ture s For Ci . gar Advertis . 1??,g of Leading . . Cigar Companies in Vari~s . Channels~ 1938 . ~.. 119 , Table 34 Expend~ tures for C _ igarette Advertis ing by . Four L~ading . Cigare~te Manuf'actu.r~~s. 1938 ll9 Table 35 WageiJ, Material . Costs, and y _ all;le o r Produ9ts in . the Oiga:r Ind:us ~ tr . ies in the . United States, ~. 1859 .. J:937 . , ........ .,. ; 120 . .. Table 36 Cost of Materials and Labor Compared with Total Value of P:roduct, Cigar Industry in the ' {f.nited _ . Sta tea, 1929-1937. .... . . . . . â€¢.. J 21 Table 37 Aver.age Week17 Wages Per Worker in the . Cigar In. dustry _ in the UnitEtd Stat . es, Florida, Hew Jersey Pennsylvania~ and New York, 1927-1937 . 121 Table 38 S1,11,ucra1~y Indjces For the Ciga:r Industry 'ill the . Uted ~tates, 1919-1936. '. ~ ; 122 Table 39 Internal . Revenu~ Receipts From Tobacpo : ~roducts in the Uni~~ -S . ~ates, Fis cal Years. 1913-1~38 . .. . .. ~ 123 Table 40 . Inte1t.aJ Re . venue Receipts Fl-om . Cigars. By States . . an4 Terrltor1e s , Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1938 124 Table 41 . PerceRtage of Net Earnings to Net Worth, of Leading Cigar Manufacturing Companies in the . . . lJAi ted . States :,, 11 1927~938 . . 125 Table 42 Ea.r.rii~s Per Sha?Je on Cou11110n Stock ~or . Leading Cigar Manu:factur1.ng Companies , 1n . the United . . Sta t : es t . 1922-1~38 : . Table 43 P1onee:r uigar F1rxna of ~amp~, . 1886,-1905 . Table 44 11a 3~~ Cigar Factories Closed in Tampa Througli . . Removal to a New Location, Consolidation or . 126 127 Dissolution, 1928-1939~ ......... . , .. . . ......... 128 Table 45 Cigars Produced i~ 'l'en1pa, Pqpulation 9ens1>.S of . . . Tampa, 1~00-19~9~ . ~............... l-29 Table 46 . Quantity of . Cub~ Tobacco In(Ported . by â€¢_. the United States, Qu~t1 t y of HavBJUl Tobacco . Imported . ThrGUgh Tai1ij>a, Per cen~ of To~ _ al Ha~ To.bacco ~po~ted ~ou.gb Tamp~, , Total Value ~d . Av~r:age Value Per ~ound of Toqacco E::nterins the Port or :T&ac.pa , Fiorida~ . Calendar Yf'ars, 19 29_.1~3~ 130 Table 47 Tobac . co lmpo:rted ~ough the Po~t or .. Tsn4,a, . Flori~, . 1929-1938 .......... .~. ......... ~ 151 Table 48 General . Ra . tea of Iinport Duties on Uro11aJiu..facturea . . Topacco, 1~3:.i939~. ~ ~. â€¢. . . 132 Table 49 Imw . :rt Duties on Urnccanuf~c~1.1;red Tobacco From Cuba, 1883 .. 1939 . . . .132 Table so Band Cigar Plan ts . of , Tami>', (19) , Members or 'l'a 1 1:i)I . ...~ _ Cigar Manutac ture~s , Associa~ion, < . class~ticatian _ Ac . cording to Type of '.i'oba~co Used), JulT ~, 1939 . 133 Table 51 Establishm!3nta . Producj.ng Cigars, _ Cig~et~eQ . and , ...;,A . . Other llanutactu1 ed Tobacco in . Florida . ; 1915-1938 Table 52 Location of Cigai, Es tablishments ~n Florida, . , July 1, 1939 . . '! 134 I . . . . ' .

PAGE 10

I i viii Table 53 Table 54 Table 55 ... Table 56 Table 57 Table 58 . . Table 5 9 Table 60 . Table 61 ' Table . 62 Table 63 Table . 64 ~ able 65 Tab le . 66 Table 6'/ . Table 68 Table 69 Table 70 . ' T abl e 71 Table 72 . . Table 73 Table 74 Table 75 . Table 76 . . THE C!G . 4R I N DUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA ' . Page . Statistics for the Cigar Indu~try o~ Florida, (Lar g er ~ ~tablishmen _ ts) , 1890-1937... . . 135 Tax-Paid Withdrawal of Cigars For Consumption By Clas s es in Flo~ida Distr1c~, 192 _ 0-1938 . . â€¢.... 156 TaxPaid Withdrawal of : Cigars F9~ Con&tiu,ption By Clasee s, Rercen~a g e of Tota . l ~de P of Each Clas~, Florida Dis~ric . t, 1920-1938 . 13'7 Tax-Paid Withdrawa l. Qf Cigar s . For 9ot:is1mption By , Classes_,.. ~am~a Dist~ic _ t, 1g20-1~3a._............ 158 Tax-Pald W1 thdrawal . of Cigars For Consi1mption By _ Classes, ~erce . nt or C.l:a,sses to Annal Total, TaD1pa District, 1920-19~8 . 159 Comparison of _ Ci g ars . S9ld By Plants in the Ta1npa District, Wi tb. Sales By Plants in _ Flol;'ida~ and . Cigars Manufactu re d in the U~it~d States, . . 1920-1938 â€¢...â€¢.. â€¢................ : â€¢. 140 Estim&t~d Pa~oli of the Gi g ar Industry in the Tampa . Area, 192 . 6..;1938 . . 141 Numbe r qf . Ernploye es . in Tampa Ci _ g~r .Fae tortes, . Inc . lud1ng .Machine Fa~to~ies, Separated as to Men and Women, 1930 . ~d : 1939 _ . : ...... ... . ............... 141 Cla ssi fication of . Tampa Cigar P1ants AccQcrd i:p.g to Cap1tal1zat~on, Salea, Output, ,id Employees, 19 . 'J1ampa Plants, . 19313 . . -.. 142 Index of Sales of Oigars, By 19 Tampa Companies, 19261938 . . ,, 142 .. Tax--Paid w~thdrawals of Cigars For Conat1rrrp~ion By Classes, 19 Tampa Factories, 1926-19 . 38.... . 143 Percent~ge of . Tax-Paid Withdrawals of Cigars For Cons11mpt1on By Cias~es, 19 'J1 . ~1,ipa Fa~tories, 1926-1938 . . 14:S Te.x -Paid . Withdrawal o f Oig~r . s By Classes of +9 .. . Tampa Faetor ies, . First Six Months, 1939 . 143 Withdrawals of Ciga rs For Cons11mption By Classes Fl-om . Clear Havana Factories or Tampa, 6 Tampa Fa~tories, 1926-1938 .-~ . !'. 144 Wi ' th~awals ot Cigars For cona1Jmption -by Classes, , Ft-om C~ea:r;Havana and Shade Factories of Tampa, 8 TanLpa F~cto:ries, 19a6-l:938 ~..... . 145 Wi thdrawa:ls of Cigars . For Cona . umption By Classes, From . Sh9:de . Cigar Factor1E)s of Tairipa, 5 Taxrtpa . . Factories, . 1926"!"'1938............................ 146 . , : Percentage of Total . Withdrawals 'Of Cigars For Corisu~ption By Clas~es, Fron,. Clear Havana . Factories of Tan1pa, 5 ~a,,ipa Factories, 1926-1938... . 147 _ Percentage . of Total _ Withgrawala of Cigars For Consumption By Classes, From Clear . Havana and S,hade Fact or i es of Tampa~ 8 Tampa Factori . es, . ' 1926-1938 . . . . : 14'7 Percentage of Total withdrawals or Cigars ;By . \ Claa sefJ, From Shade Factories of Tar,q)a, 5 Ta,,tpa Fact'ories, 1926-1~38 . . ~.. 148 Percentag~ By Classes of Tota~ With~awals of Cigars for Con~ption, From Three Groups of Tampa Cigar p1ants Manufactur ing 01eaxâ€¢ Fiavana, . Havana and Shade . Land Shade, . 1926-19~8~ 148 Sea~onal In~ex of withdrawals of Cigars For . . Co n si1mption of 17 Compa.n1es in T~pa, .1938...... 149 Variety of. Brands By Classes of' 19 T:empa CollJPanies . 1939 -. . . . ,, 150 Co1DP osite B~lance Sheet 1 18 T&rrrpa Cigar Companies , . 1926-1938 . . 1 50 Ratios of . B alance Sheet Figllres, 18 , Tampa Cigar Companie.a, 1926~ . 1938 . ~ . â€¢. 151 .

PAGE 11

. . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS ix . Page . . . Table 7 7 Table . 79 Table 79 ' Table 80 Table 81 . . . Table 82 Table . 83 Table 84 . Table 85 Table 86 . Table 87 Table 88 Table 89 Table 90 Table 91 T ab le 92 . Table 93 Tabl e 94 Fazâ€¢nlngs on Invested Capit~l, 16 Tamp . a Companies, 1926~1938. . . .......... . .... . .. â€¢. . . Compo . site Profit and . Loss State~ent, 14 T~mpa Companies, 1926-1938 .. Percentage . of Net Sales of Cost of Sales, Selling .. Expense, Adm1 . n1 . strat1 ve an~ Oenera . 1 ~pense,and Net Profit, 14 ~empa 09mpanies, 1926-1938 Cost of Labor, Tobacco and Taxes, and Their Per. centag~ of Cost of sa . les, in 19 Tampa Cigar . FBtctor1es, 193 0-1938 . _ ; Cost o~ Labor, TobaQco and T~es Per : )( Cigars . 152 . 152 153 154 . Manufactured, ~9 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1930-1938. . . ., 165 Cost of Tobacco and Duties and Percentage of Their Total Cos~, 1 , 9 Tampa . Cigar Factories, 1930-1938. 1 . 56 Cost of Tobaccd ~nd Duties Per M Cigars Manuftct _ ured~ 19 Tampa Cigar Factories~ 1930-1 . 938. r 157 Pe~centage of Customs Duties, Internal Reven~, , \Dd . . Other T9.?tes to Total . Taxes, For 19 . Tampa Cigar . . Factories~ 1930-1938 . .....,J 158 Cost Per M Cigars Manufactured of Customs . Duties, Internal Revenue, and Other Taxes, For 19 Tampa Cigar Factories~ 1930 -1938.............. 159 Inter?1$l . Revenue Taxes on Cigars According to tlie . Principal . Internal Revenue . Acts, From 1909 to 1931 . . ., ' . Tax Breakdo1m of a Typical Tampa Factory, Sh.owl~ ._ Specif.le Taxes As Percenta g es of Cost of Sales, 1933 160 161 Tax Breakdown of a Typical Tampa Factory, Show!~ . Specific Taxes As Percent~gea of Cost of Saies, 1938 . ~. 161 . . . Cost . of Supp lies of . 19 Tampa Cigar Factories, 1930-1938 . ....... . . 162 . '"ost of Cellophaning : by Hand and Machine in a ' Typical Tampa Cigar Factory , 1930-1939 162 Compari~on of the Oost of Machine and . Hana. cellophaning As Found in a Typical 'J.'ampa Fae. tocy, 1939 . , _ 163 Expenditures . For Adve~t1s1ng and Bad Debts, . Shown . As Percentages of Net Sales, 14 Tampa Factories, 163 1926..;1938 . . ~. ~atimated c ost of Free Smokers to Tampa Cigar . Companies, 19 Tampa Companies , 1926~1 938 164 Number . of Emplayees . ,in 19 Tan1pa Factories, 1926-1939 .... ;. 165 Table 95 . Distribution of Employees By Department and Sex in 1,9 Tampa Cigar Factories,. 1939......... 165 Table 96 Average Weekly w age and Hourly Eazâ€¢nlri g s of ~ Cigar~ . makers, 19 Tampa Fact . ories, For Sa~ple Weeks Fr . om Each Month, July, 1938 June, 1939. ... _ ~ . 166 Table 97 The Wage Scale . ?or the Spanish Hand System, Ef. f&c~ive in the Tampa Factorie , s, 1934 .. and 1939. 166 T~ble 98 Average We&~ly Wages of Workers Engaged in Dif. . ferent Cigarmaking Processes and Operations, 19 Tampa Fact _ ories, Samgle Weeks . in Each Month, . J'Uly, 1938 June, 1939 . . . 167 Table 99 . ~ercentage Distribu tion of Ciga~s.kers and : Cigar~ By Proces ses, in . 19 Factor i es, Tampa, Florida, 1938-1939 -. . ~ ... 167 I ' . . ' PAGE 12 .. . .. ' ... . . .. . . f . ' .. . X THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA; FLORIDA . . . . . l'age . \ . Ta b le 10 . 0 Labo~ C o st Per M Cigars ._ of . D~:fferent Cigarm~king . . . . . P:r~cesses and Op~rations, 19 _ Tampa Cigar Fac to~ ~es, ~ample _W ~eks . in Each . Mo11:th . , July, .. 19 _ 38 . J~e , 19 3 9 . . . .. 167 . __ T ab le 101 Productivity of Cigarmakers in Average Cigars . .. Per W o rker-Week, By Di ffe:r,ent Proc _ esses . of Man. uf~cturing, in 19 ~ampa _ Faotories, July, i938 . . June, 1939 ....... . . . ~ 168 T ab le l02 Average Number of Cigars Mariu.factured and Average , Wages For digaripakers and ' Other ~actory Labor . Per Hour, P . er 8-Hour nay, an PAGE 13 . . . . .. . . ~, .. -, .--. . .. Part I . . . . . . . .PROBLEMS OF THE TAMPA CIGAR . INDUSTRY ' . This . first section of . the Report . on the Survey of the Cigar , Industry of Tampa will suni up the pro'ble~s of th!s in4\us .. try; in Tampa. . . . . . . . . It is _ considered advisab-le to ' pre$ent ~ brief _ picture of the . industry's ills at the beginning of . t . he Report so that the . \ . . reader can . have . these ~efpre him as he goes thpougn th~ more deta 11ed sections which . follow. Figures and tactual data support ing the conclusions of this se . ction appear in sub,aeq~ent parts of the Report. Persons 1n tereste-d in the 1ampa situation should be able to gr . asp its main features from this first s . ect1otl . A . careful r ' ead . ing o r . the remainder of the Report will ~nable them to fill in the gaps, ve;rify the conclusions, and have a genuine understanding o . f the conditions under which . the cigar industrie.s o f Tampa arid of the United Sta . tea are operating. . . . . 1 The _ H1.1man Element : 1n the C~gar .. Indus : try of Tamp~. . In th.i s Jlepo . rt all phas . ea of th~ s1 tuation _ wi l~ ._. be : diac;ussed frankly, as : it is b elieve d that a frank consideration of all the c omponent parts of a problem is necessary . for its solution. In pas t years _ almost all o f _ the owners _ and '1orkers in the Tampa cigar pl _ ~nts have been Latins. At t}:le present . ti m e . about two-thirds of the ow11ers and nine-tenths of the m i _ nor o.f.ficials and workers in the hand ci g ar plants of ' Tampa are o f Latin ex. t r a~tion, ch1ei'ly Spanish and Cuban, ~1th a sprinkling of Ital ian s. This has had a decided effect on the cigar indu _ stry in Ta m pa. _. . The ' Latiri race has some fine qualities, such as a love of ar tis try, of beauty and romance, and of a . leisurely _ mode ot li v ing, interspersed with pleasure and gaie _ t . y. The re . are sane very connp.e~dab le examples o r the La ti ri t ype in Ta~pe.. As -: a . ., : _ class ~hey are l _ oyal in suppo~ting ~~eir .family members Slld ' 1 .:-r frier:ds, an~ are tena(?ious in their . suppov . t of wna t they believe t o b e a prin~iple, or a ri~t. . ~The Lp.tin method of business is formal, leisurel y anci un, _ .. hurried. . Buain~ss la distinctly an avocati on . rather than a vo: ca tion w1 th ~em. Above all th~y be1 1 . ev~ in the force of custom a s applying to businesa, as well as to dress and to social beha vi or. After a business trarisa c tion has beeri handled in a . . ' cer t a in manner .for a while, it establishes a precedent, and that s o on h as t~e bindin g force o f a n atu.r-al law. In such a case the p art1~ s . ~ involved hav,e the right to asst1~ _ e that the transaction will c o nt inue to be performed in exactly the same way, and if necessary to e11force . compliance w1 th the e stablished mode. '11his . point . of v:1 . ew assumes a static, . r9:t h er than a chang in g b usiness world. I t does not al low for social~ e conomic or t3chnol ogical 1mprovementa, tha t go with pro g ~ess. It tenda to tie tbe han:ts of industry, insofar as keeping abreast of the t im es is concerned. . . . The ci , gar industry : of Tampa ~as .feit the effect of this tendency to adhere to the old way of .... doing things. The :force . , o ~ custom is the ~ ost powerfu~ .force in tpe Tampa _ industry to d _ ay So~~ of the ~anufac;turers _ have no de . sire . to improv~ methods in t b e ir p lants because ~ey ha ve always . done thi~gs in the old way. . Other manufacturerft desir _ e to . make . changes, . put are prohibi ted _ lar ~ ely by th'e force of cus . t om. Qertai . n change _ s desired b y this group . would be opposed by t:O.~ workers ~s int-erfer1Jl8 . . . : I ' . .. ,

PAGE 14

. .. . ' I , . 2 , . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TA.MP.A., FLQRIDA . ' . â€¢. . . . . with sonie of _ uieir cherished cu atoxâ€¢â€¢i!, an~ so, wit~ a set-up .. . . . and methods .a ~nc,ratlon old, th~ Tampa plan:ts drl:rt along, decl1J?.1ng _ a l.it~+e more each . ye ai:-. _... _ . . . There a tim~ when the cigar _ pl&11te _ Qf Tampa were very . prospero~s. Thi~ ~as ~et ere the general smoking pul;>l1c had turned 1ar-gely to c1g~ret~ee and cheap c igar~, anq machine~Jl}sd~ \ e1 gars bad be gun to capture a major portion of the ma~ket. It was . likewise b~fo~â€¢e .. ce . rtain .. e~~,,,echin~ d.ev~cee . for . 1ncr~asiJ18 produc;,tlvi:ti, an.a eff1ciency ,me:tl}~~ of various ~lnds, bad ~ede their appearanpe __ 1~ the plants of their chief competi tore. , Iri those pro epe rous t;Iaye, ~a11ipa-made clear : }Javana cigars were ' k:nO~ll ~hroughout the . oountfy ra e a M!lr~ Of quality, thei~ . producers ~njoyed larg~ sal : ee and . b1.g pr _ ofits . To some . extent . these advantages were . b . as~d on reg1.onal 1:11onopoly as . t he cli~ mate of Tanipa was more _ sui t&:ble . for the hand-produc tion of . Havall$cigars then . other . centers. Under such advan,:; _ ag~oua . C(?n di tions there was not much incentive or nece . ss'i ty for e:f.ficie~J . oy in the plants . . . '. . I â€¢, Workers ~n the plarits in tho se days _. rec e1ved _ very blgb . wages. Sw:,>lus workers ~ere and ther~ in . the plent, . slow ways o : f doing things~ and waste o~ . material. did not bother th~ mena . gement . at such a ti~e. Nei~~er did . such thin g s as i:padequat~ reserves, lack o . f . sustained : advertising and long-rallge sellln~ programs . Tampa plant owners and o:f:ficials lived in an U . topia ~hich cou ld . not and did not last. With the adve _ nt or certain factors mt,ntioned in the precedi~ paragraph, . the ~eturns be . came leanerâ€¢ ~d . the . going Dfore dif'f'i~ul t. . . It was then that . the failure to follow . buaine~a..:.11ke$ethods of plant operation . and c~:re . fu1 management began _ to ~ell . Salea shrank and costs mounted . .. Competitors . began to ~apture the 1D$rket . tlul.t :formerly pelonged to the Te11,pa clear Havana producers . , . . . . .:' . : . It has been mentioned that tbe true Latin is an artist ;. . . . . Thia is .. borne . out too well in the experience of the cigar ~~u fac~urers or _ Te 1np~, who were c~ncerned . primarily with the ma . king of a , h1gb quality. ~1gar, an~ not . s~fficient~y with the cost~ and returns from selling the c . ig~r. Hence . ; . the manage1:11ent . of . the _ plants was not as . ta~. sighted as 1t . s;tiou;J.d bave been,. the 1.1nsat . 1sfa~tory situation ot: today ~~ing caue:ad in part by this lack of properly etrees . 1ng the ecpf:tomic elements of the business . The . Latin cigw--msker : also oonsidel's himself more o:r an . ~rtist tha'n a wo~ker. Thia faeling :pas caused b+m to resent . . pla _ nt ~lee , and restri _ ctions and oppo _ se . measure s which . . are a part or . the at~dard : diacipline in Americ an plants. He has been irkett . by m1rior p . lant I'egulations to t h e , point . of resisting . them . vigorouslyâ€¢ . He he.a 1;t t . endency to take things per taining to his w0:rk or . his art, ~a he thinks of it; . very ser . iou~ _ ly, which :. frequently +~ads . t~ . his . making a ~a jor issue ' out o , f a : very . tri v. 1 ~1 occurrence. Once an lss~e ls before him he will fi~t des. . perately for 1 t , . whf.~h . help~ explain soitte Gf' the cont ro~ersies between ~he . wo . rker~ . and ~mployera . in the industry~ Many of th~ employe~~ for their part are j~st as stubburlf about compromi~ing . ' an . issue. . , . ... 1 The;re are s~e . ~tionali ties which are know11 to possess a . . trait ot d~rect and open d~a11ng. 'l'liey w11l speak their _ minds f~ank1y and ~penly . , perhaps _ quar~~l a.,id . get 1 t over with., . then , . . settle the matter -' and forget it. The Latins are not . 1 ike this. . . They will talk . all ar . ound a point~ h~si tat1118 to dea l W,.th . itâ€¢ Then, pel'hapa _ , they w111 not _ s9:-y what ~hey think, bu t sOlllething else. It takes much time to . get matters settle~ in this . way, and sometimes they . ar~ never settled . ~ometimes a real or fan"'!" ci . ed wrong which is n~ver brou~t into the open becomes a me tt er for b~ooding over months O'r years, 1 _ nc~eas-1ns -in magnitude and seriousnef'.IS '1-~ t _ ime goes on. A . settlement of the matter in the b~ginning, eve;n if 1t take~ . a quartel to do it, would . seem tQ be much better. PAGE 15 J . . . . . . PROBLEMS OF TJlE TAâ€¢fA CIG.A.R INDUSTRY . 3 .. .. .. I . . . Tile Latin J11Anufac . ~erâ€¢ and . the .. La. tin workers . are . engBged . in arguing about eome~htng a go~ part or each , :year. SJna.ll grievances .. _ that . should ~e s~~tled 1 ,,,'td:iately tii the shopt @ ., before a jo1n:t . labor l)~ard ooa~â€¢osed . Qt 1 _ 1rauutac~ers and; . men . and : then tlie ta lktng starta. .. ~1Tial matters are . . . tled pronip~ly by this boardâ€¢ but sometime~ are discuss-4 lor days. . Hours â€¢~ ev~n days have been oons,uneq in arguing ovei the meaning or one word. When negotiation.a started 1n 1919 fo~ the renewal o:t the contract between . the mam,tact\lrera and worke . rsâ€¢ three weea t diacuaai~n, wi th meotinge every da7â€¢ . . necessary be~ore the preri,1e to the contra.ct was a~eed 01,. In _ 1938 1 the o~eâ€¢t~tee o~ 7 m _ anuf'acturers and workers . set to . . adjust labor di:t:terei;ic~s held 267 meetings laa~1ng 497 hours. Does it seem &strange thâ€¢t the c1ga~ ind11stryot T&:mpa is lag ging when 80 much time 18 . a . pent . in tâ€¢lk1Jig ~n~ disagreement;! ~ . . Th~ 1arg~ ~1lies , a:,nr,na_ Latina have had . their ettect on the cigar induatry of _ Tampa._ ~ Pla~t .. o~rs have . brought sonsâ€¢ . nephews ana relatives into their i buaineas in official oapaci. ties. ;. In . some 1.nstanoea these ~ve pro~&(i capable oft1Qlal8J in others . , . a burden on the .b,is in~aa. Foremen have select-1 . . . many o f' the~r r~latives t'Qr positions the tactor _ iea. Iii . some of the,,, _ :fani~ly groups have persisted. . . . In some of the plants at various . times foremen have atn1aâ€¢d . their author~ty~ They hav:e been kne,an to req~ire ~ribes or. d1t:.. feren t kinds .tram the . workers 11nder Some have also re. quired the workers to .. patroniz~ c~rtain oo~oesaiona ~ Inataiic~a . have . occur:Ntd . Qf ~11,11l0rall ty . in the fact . ories involviitg thil J sanctio~ o~ participation of ~he . fc;>reJQen and their friendâ€¢â€¢ . Fort11nately theae instances are not common . and tend -to be d1.a appear 1ng. They , . are mentioneg with the hope that the 1aat v:ea. .. tiges of' them will be ro\lted out ot the T _ a,,g,a . oi_.gar indua't;r.y . Some o~ _ the Latin menu.racturer~ have maintained a gu1r be tween thf'm&ftlve1, ~nd their workel'e. . Thie ma.,not have ' been _ intentiona 1, . but simply a result 9f. ' their soct a~ . ouston,a. 41 . same :time it .. h,as ~ea~;l.ted _ 1n a _ barr.ie;r between labor and ..-nagement 1n th" p1ants, which has . widened as time went on. . '11111 workers _ have . resented tlds alooneaa, and the relati . ona ~en : the p . ~tie~ have . aui'te~d because of it. For. i~stanc:e, 1:ba â€¢ieJluâ€¢ racturer~ have neve~ dea1t ~rectli with their wol'kers in &DJ" . . matter, but a1wa,-s through their plant :manager : s or f9~e11â€¢eâ€¢â€¢â€¢ Some direct deal~8 and personal contacts might help eonaideF ably. Bo th groups . ha~e 1nte~esting and htunsn personal1~1Nâ€¢ "nd individu~l contacts betwe~n them might enabl.e thA1i1 to see \hat their . 9bjectivea are practi.cally . th~ same , successful p'.lanta . that w111 .:_ give a .ra 1r return to both owner and worker. . Som& ot the . cigar manufacturers . ot Tampa have ~ailed to co operate w i~h . others. ;J;t is realized that moat . of them ye com. _ pet! tors; but man1tfactur~re . in . _ the . same . center~ they ha-.e common inter est~ and . aho'1ld euppor-t each other 1:n ,1ettera lnvolv. ing . managerial problems. Fo~ inst.an~e, ea~ msuufactrer ehould be b,ee ~o. use the meth~d ot ~nufacture ~n ~a plant t~t he consi.de~s bees t. Yet. _ som~ o.t the Ts:n1pa manufaet.-111â€¢\:trs . have fai1ed to suppo%'~ others i:n this right. At ~imes they have even â€¢njoy-ed . seeing their f~llow-manutacturer~ beset ey plant t~les er var ious llindS., and bllve not be~n v.er"j ready. _. to QPmo to the _ ir aid. The cigar . menufaoturers of Ta,,,;pa a1 11 e tinited in ns11a,s in :the ~s.1,apu Cigar lfanutaot\Jx~ers 1 â€¢ssooiati:QD, but they should be . ,.,nltecl : tn !'act enq. present a conuaon ~ont to problenm in th~ industn. This ,rou1d help a great de . al . in the promqt,.i.on of prospert'.'j ror . . their _ ll:141vidi,al ' plants and the cigar industry of' T$mpa . . The .. cigar workez_-s o.t Tair,pa have had a . b&i'd ~1me in recent years, and this has . made them bitter. They have aeon , their wages dr . op to an average of $13.8 ' 6 : per week, due to . the s],unp in the. industry _ and the ctpread1ng . ot â€¢o~k so _ t}ult . more workers could be ~mployed. ... T.b.is . practice; w:t,.i _ ch wil+ . be. treate~ 1ater was agree _ able with . the workers, and yet 1 . t meant that each one : re. cefved 1e ss than . he 'ltould 1-f employed full time, I:t has likewise .. . ' I ' .. PAGE 16 .. â€¢, . . . . . ' 4 . . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA . . . . . . . .. ' . . . . . . ' . . . been a . burden on . the employer, in added oyerh~ad costs. . . . The ~igh s . cale of rat e s for : hsnd41!"Dlade . cigars w~ioh the Tampa .. workers have always received is a m~tter of pride with them . It reca+ls past years when: no t only rates were high, but ~&.rn1nge l!kewie e. The . n . tli~y ea med high wa g~s and were proud ot the . 11' . occupation. Now the high rates in . Tampa are h~ting . the indus try in this .. di strict by m~~ing . _ the laqor costs higher than 1~ . ,. compet . ~ are~s. The work~rs hav~ und~ly stressed wage r,te , t ra . ther _ than . ~otal .ea~~;nss~ If ~hey could forget t~e . a~d ra e sc ale~ and think of !ncreaaed product!vity and higher ekrnlngs . with the . use of . fast~r methods _ anq. _ a lbwar scale~ they and the 1nqustcy might be . much better of. . . . . . . . , ~ A l~~ge n1.1mb~r of . ~p.e c !gar worke:rs in Tampa do not grasp the present sitati on in th~ industry. Eithe~ from indi ff er' ence, or ina'b~l~ ty to get t~ fact~, they cannot under~tand: . 1 t. ~ey: rely l:argely on their union, leaders for inf'ormation. It . . . . . 1s beli~ved th~t a good many of the se workers . would . OO(?perate .. ;n . efforts to h~lp the . industry, if they realized 1 ts . prese~t . . . , need , , and understood what would h~lp it. . . . Some o.f the Ta~pa cigar workers bave ~cted _ as th~ugh their re~uc . ed wage w:as " 1onger ~amain in . a el,,rp, . but will coinpete : . su~cess _ f'u . l _ ly with the c;mts~~ding . plants in the country . : . It was . sta . ted at the beginning of this section that ab~t .. two-thirds or t~e pre . sent c,w11ers . of hand cigar plants in Tampa are ~ Le:tin. Of the . ~emainder, , one-half 1 are Jewish a~d one-half old-line ~rl-Can. The , J:ewish owners are good plant operators and e:xcell~nt . pus*nes~ . m~n. They do nc;,t pos s , ess the a :rtistry. of . the Latina in making c 1 . gars, but have a shrewd talent for . e~onomi~s and a sound .jd~ent _ for s~les outlets . Kariy of the c 1ga;r . compani,as of the courttry have a . combination of Latin manag~~ent ~ in t~~ p~~nt and Jew1 sh sup~rvisi.on over sales. , . . The old-line, _ American p ia:nt _ owne:r . s . Eire , fairly good busines s . . men, _. but are drifting along wl th the t 1de of the Ta)'.Dpa ip.dustry . , . , . hoping ' for . bet . te:r . . days . . . . . . . 2 The Cartabon .' . . .. . . . . . . . An examp~e of ~~erence to . old prac tices in the Tampa . . . cigar industn _ ifi the present use of the "Car t . abon , '' This 1s .$. detailed l i st or ;i.e.-bor . rates . of _ approx1me tel:=y 20 _ 9 different sizes . and shapes of . cigars, and the principal salal'i ed pos . t. tions . in th~ plapts., ,. Jrhlch waa drawn up . about 1910. )'pile ~here _: . has been what amount . e d to a _ b _ lanket _ decr~ase &D:d subsequenif 1n cPease in this entire rate s . cale, there has been no individual .. . c~ange of the ratep siiice 19~0. Is there any other industry 1p the Un 1te , d States w~ch mainta 1ns a set scale of labol!' _ rates, .: . fixed in 1910? The Cartabon . wa~ originally drawn up to prevent . labo . r rate-cutting . in t h~ Tainpa 61gar. 1ndustey, . being o r : sotn& . protection . to both employers . and workers. . It " n~w appears . to . ' . . be retarding the indust ry by be1ng too . ar . chaic and inelastic. ~t is clogged by . ~ 1zes and shapes of c,igars . which ~ve not been . Il)a : de in years and . will probably . never be ma.de _ again. Stylea . . .J . 1n cigars have changed since 1910 as they have in other products ., but a set of ~o~den models or each size . and shape li~ted in the . Car.tab.on, which was made when this was drawn up, is . ~s ~ , i~l kept .. w!' i .. I

PAGE 17

. . . . . ' . . . . . .. ' . . . . .. . . ' . . PRoBriâ€¢s op raE rA.â€¢Pi c1G.11il rNnusril.r . . . 5 . 4 . .... . . . ' . " . . by the Tamp& . 1nc1u,stry-. B~w ~i~ea can, be intro~uced in the Car tabon, a.ft~r .. a series . . of con.f , e~ences be~ee~ mauu.fac.turwa and workers, . but a new slze takes the rate : ot the next highest in. stead o.f an ~nteriediate rs.te . .. This u,u~ll7 1 m,ar;is a subatant1al inerease in the labor rate ro~ the . new size, and manufacturers report many . 1nstances ot havi.Jig tO' re.t'ua~ n~â€¢ orders because ot . ~he inab 111ty . ot having the new e1z , e made at a . rate which wQUld allow them ~o compete th other _ producing areas.a'h~y oon _ ap lain of the di.t:ticulty ~t introducing new size~ . under the Carbabon, . and s tate they are losing ground to competitors who can ftlaj . styles to -' co~eilpond 11'1 th market .. cliang"'a . $.t no additional labor _ . cost. The pre,ent sales price ot oig~ra 1s not a baalo :tactor in the Cartabon rates; nor is it ~ven eori81~erad _ aer1oua The predom1 . nating .factor is .forc e ot custom. 'l'hia el . 1n th e rat . e . ai~a~i~n has great;ly :retard&d . th~ dev~lOP,5'."rit ot: the Tampa . cig~r ~~tr,-~ . . . . . . . . 3 Lack of. llod&:r111zat101a i!n the . T81'Wp& Plants. . . . Tiie Tan91$ cigar plarita, with the excepti on of. . ~he ~fttampa C . iga~ Compa , ny; a~e not as e , :f.f 1c1e~t as the7 : might . :t,e . 'l'fa:a 111 partly t~e 1'ault of the 111&~gemont,. in not keep _ ing abi: ~ut o~ . . . the 1:imes ~natalling economies~ . and , part17 the tauJ.t er th-e labor 1il the plan~a -., 1Ji not be _ 1ng _ willing to , obang,, acw,ae ot the old cust~a . r,~ the 1~ 1 ,atry . in f&.vor of no~er, bette~ Jlle'thoda. ' ' The . hand cigar planta .. of Tampa f.ppea:r . to be opere.t.t 1n the . . same mamier aa . they were twenty; thirty -or .: titty years ago. Whi~e some additions have been . made to the equijmJent in s . oDae of! the pia.nta, such ,-a b,inching . -.chines, stripping ma~hinea , , ~â€¢lio~ . . p~p.ing and bancnns machines, et . o . tlle w:ork 1n . the plâ€¢nt ia cat-ried on in the r:tama old way. Th~ ~torage , ~nd ageing or the tobacco, . its _ cas . ing, blending , and stripp1 ng, have J;ait9ergone li~tle chsng"â€¢ . The method . o.f d1stribut1:ns IQ!)ter1il. to ,_ the wor.kmen, collec~i~ ~he c1.ge.rs, inape , c~ing . then,, and p1â€¢tllng artd packing them, is almost identical ~th that 1 1sed f'U~ yean ago. A _ fo;r-ce of .foremen, selectors, cle~ks, _. strt,ppera, ptckere packers, . et.c., is maintai~ed according to a predete~o,1:ne4 acbedtt ule rathe;ithan the ~eed for ~hem. Ye ~ ars a go , : a . rat io w _ aa worked out showing the number . of thes~ var1ous worke~s that ea(m plant . must _ employ; ac~ordtng to its production o,r . the dif.ferent grades . of c _ iga~s. That schedule 1B fixed . and i>nchanging today. The . . need for the services of some or these work-era seems to be sec ondary. They are there by. c~tom and by agree=9nt b . etweea manu _ facturers and â€¢orkers . an~ they ren,ain. . . Sa,., or the manuraoturera do . not want . any changes 1~ their plants or in the industry, and are . par _ tly to ble;,'J ror . the de cline Qr c.1gar mamJfac turi ng . 1n 'l'ampa. Othe . r 1â€¢â€¢~utacturer11 &1 e , . progressive and would like . to change ao,,,e the old methods, l;>ut they are coni'ronted by a. .force .. of . tradi tiop. .so stro11g that they have been . ,1na1?l~ to make anyheadway against it~ U things were ,done in the oiga~ industry -' O:f ~ampa 1n certain wa79 . ror erxy length o,.r time t~ey took ,: on the ~ tatus : of ~ustny11 _ s, , and oneâ€¢ .. given claa a1f1cat~on; nothing short ot revolution could change . them. : To aggriiavate &n: . _ unsatisf'actory~i . tuatton; JIIIID7 of' these old custo _ nâ€¢a have been . rat1.fied by ~gre . emen-t between Mn11:fac turers and workers. . . . The workf)rs in t ' he ind11stry attaeh great 1mpo~ta~ce to the way the work baa : peen oa1â€¢r1ed 6n in . ~e pas . t in the and are qutck to resent an:, . 1nnovat . 1on . or change.They have -.sec1 obstinate : struggles . to preser,e the old me~hods, a~ have euc ceeded in incor.por~ting some o~ them 1il agreements .. In cases . invQlvi;ng the s1mpl;1f1cation o.f processes in the . plants so that a smalle . r ~,m1>er or workm-er;s. could do thenr; the worke t's are ada mant. 'I'hey ~ould fight ., ~espeJWS:tely rather than pera_1,1t . the ellm. !nation o.r . a . few surplus workers in the p1,pit~ . . ' . ' â€¢. . . .. I I . , '

PAGE 18

' . .. . . . . . . . . 6 . .. . . . .. . . . . THE qTGAR , INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA . . . 4 Inadequate Adve t ising by the Tampa . Cigar . Companiesâ€¢ : ' . I . . . . . . . Some years ago ' T . ampa-made Havana cigars did not need . adv~r . .tising. Theywel'e lmown tnrougbout the count _ ry by ~mokers <;>f _ fine cigars. . Th~y wer~ constant1y 1n demand,. and _ evecy deal~I1' . stocked them. Ts:D'lpa manuf'actuiâ€¢~rs simply filled the orders with qneli ty cig~rs ... as they . came . in. . . . . . . Th ~ situatipn ha s been differfjnt in re ~ent years . Cigar cons~tion ha~ _ und~ rgone a: . ser ious ci~p;Li~e . . Cigar . oompe.n1ee in _ otHer parts ~f the . United States . have entered tr.ie fiel~ and _ the competition _. h9:s grown 1nten$&. Th~se . other companies are not .q.epending pon tradi tion to sell thew cigars, but . have . . : enel'get1~ s~lesm~n ~nd effect iv~ ad:vertiaing. . .. . The pres~nt ciga~ .~ smoker : is not . vecy ~ch inter _ eated in Teuipa-ms de c~ga~s, unless . t:P,~y are called to hie attention . in ' s _ om~ effective way .. Some : of the older ~en still cal;L for Tampa . cigars, . but they are dy _ ~ng ~ out . When they are all gone the . . 'l'a~pa indus try will di _ e lik~wis~ = , unles~ th~ new generl;ltio~ . of smokers can be . pe~s.uaded to .. smoke . Ten.cps. .. cigar s. . . . . Advertising is , a .-. b~g ne~d ot the Tam~a cig~r industry and se~io~s attention -ahold be . given . it. ~e c-igar ma~uf~oturere . . ~r Tampa realize th~s, but 1n recent yeaz,athey h~ve not had . suttic1~nt . funC,.s : fo!! much ad~ert . is 1ng. , With their (?Ompan1ee ; . sho1ring oper.~ting .. r~sulta very close : to . the 1ine _ betw . een a . ' gain and : a loc.,s , or actu~ll:y au.ffe . rlng a loss, . the funds . have not b~en avai~abl,e fol' such a plll_'Pos e . . The msnufa ctur.ers are h;opeful of iproviflg th~ir opePating . condi t . 1on by _ modernize t . ion of some .. of their . proo~seee. r:r = ... . '"'"' . . . they suc . ceed in doi-ng . thi . s they should be able to ,. s et aside an . appropriation for -. ~f~ect1ve advertising, ' . . . 5 Uni~n Corttrol . of Labor 1n the Ta ' mpa Cigar Plaht~ . . . . . . . . -. _ labor. in : the . c~gar . plants ~f Tampa has . be . en uniopized locally ~yer sinc _ e the plan.ts began to oper~te. The lo~~l . un. ions 1-ve had nat _ ionai ~ aff111at1ons , which at ce~ta . in _ period~ . ~ve been closer th~n . at . others. They are m~ber u~ions _ of . the . In:t;ernat1onal Cigar,na~ers "Qnion of Americ . a, Inc., which is a . part of tlie . Americ~n F1ederat ion of . Labor. . , . . . There . are s ev.81?1oeal un1~n~ . the di v1s~on . being on a crâ€¢:rt basis acc9rd1ng to . ~he type of :wort . in the plants, with some .con s tderatipn bei~ given _ to _ nati onali ty. A board chosen from the membership of .' l~he . local un1 ons handles ~he relation~ with the ' i;nanufactUX'ers , the na t1onal union and the public. _ . . . The relat 1Qna . between the . cigar unions and the menufacturer s . of . Ta~ripa have not been v~ry harmonious. Th~y have bee . n ..... maPked by d.1str\1st and a lack . of frank d , ealing. . There has b em a sort of .. ru.nni ' ng quarrelbetween . them ever since the beg1nn1 ng _ of the 1ndust _ 17. , Th~s has broken tnto the ope.n on seve~al occas . ~ op s. Bad strikes have occlll'~ed in the Tampa 91gar industry . in . 1900, . 1910 1 . and 1920,, There _ has be en no serious strike 1n . r~c . ent years. . . . . . . . . . ,_ . : Sever~l years . ago the Tampa mam1.facturers . agreed tQ wha t , : ._. was vir . tual ly : a closed shop for 11n1.on . labor . 1:n :t . hei.r . pla:rits fn return .for a . promise from the . nationai ciga r . union t}lt ~here would be order e.nd harmoriy arid co opera ti ' on from labor in 4;he . . plants. This cond itlon did : no:t materialize . ' as : expected _ and . ~lie . manufacturers .feel tha tbey did not S~t . that to w~ich , ~hey were enti t led. . . . . . . . . . Recent negotu.tions . o~tween ~he par ties . pave been c~aq.. terized by a somewhat be~ter .feeling. The willingneeis of the unions . , to a _ cknowledge in thei;r . contract the ri ght of the menu. f , a:ct~er~ to modernize thei;r plants al . ong _ l . inea followed . succ~ss.. , . fully' by . their com.pet! tors is a very encouraging sign. . . , . The a ttl ~ ude . of the ma . a~ . of w9r~era .. in the Tampa Cig~r ind~stry is . p~zzling. Some of . them seem to have e. blind faith ,. f ' . . . . . . . PAGE 19 . . . . . . . .. . ' . . . . .. PROBLEMS OF THE . TA.PA CIGAJ INDUSTRY .. . . ... . l in their \JD1 0Df withou~ knowing ui,a~ t,h~ s1tuat 1o~ 1 . s or what is being done a~out it . , Others are not interested 1n the un. ion, and ~ather res ent having to pa7 their 11n~on du~s each . month~ The 1re~s or the Tampa cigar workers know very 11ti~e about t:qe prob,enae ot the . 1nduâ€¢try. It . is felt that if they knew more abot ~heee probla11aa 1 they w011Jd be willing to belp . the memtfactt 11 era . solve . them. -. ., . . . . ' 6$uri,l1ie . C1e;tar Worirera in '?am.pa. .. . , .. . . . . ,,. . . . A probl~, partly _ , ,.,uatr1al â€¢~ partly 9j. vie, concwa,a the surpl~a number of cigar ~o~kâ€¢ra Tampa. Por -. a JNJilber of years ~â€¢ ~a1npa in~~â€¢t~ bait been . o~ the dec.llneL a _ n~ haa furnished j~ba for tewer cigar workers each year . 'l'lle â€¢. total n11mber or . un"Dwp'\oyed would be even Jarger but tor the prao tice ot staggering work in tne pla~ta, _ or spreading the work emnng a J arsern1nnllei, ,;,:r workex-s than . 1 s neceaaal'J'. Pigure u co ncernlng the ex"ent ot unemployment , in the Tam.pa cigar plantâ€¢ ar~ g1ven 1n P-1't . v. . . unaer preeen:t . conditions tlfl, Tantpa cigar . plants ca11not ~mploy more worker.a. :. It they modernise _ thâ€¢ir. pJ,anta wi:th the full . cooperat1 on or their labor : and int~uce ~ffe _ ctlw advertising â€¢nd . aaleameoi,:h1P, t;here a . good poaa1b111 ot an expa~ed pr~c tion, . with . more Jobe. It 1s not be11eYed that the cigar plants . can give e~loyment . to $ll the aurpl~a cigar wor~e:ra o~ Tampa ror many : years to con,e, even .nth . prosperity 1.n the industry~ . . . . . rni,.a a 1 t.ul! tion . ie Pâ€¢ r!!i a c1 vie . pl"Ob 18m ot the TIUIIPI', co111munity . ~e cigar comp . es have . a responsibility to~ . the .. emplo,.ent or as many as _ they reaaonablT Qan~ . The civic authorities should give some attention to t'he . ta de:r. 811ggeat~ona that might help 1'i th this problem are Jllde . later :tn .. the Report. A comp licatton t.bat e~1ata in the altua.tion ia that â€¢v of ., th~ older une1q,loyed cigâ€¢ . r wo~kers, . perhaps a wa _ joi-1 t7. are n~t ~itted by t~ aining _ _ phys~que, or . tempe~a1111J11~ tor po1itions in many .9th.er industries. .. A . tawr. able aspect _ or the e.1tuat1on is that .' very: :rew ~pprentioea . 8.l'e . being . trained in . cigaraaâ€¢lcing mos~ or La~in boys and girla . going into other fields . Thia . indicates that 'bM problem should ~oâ€¢ .. lees serious ~s time goes o . . . _,_, . ... . . . 7 D1 fferentiall Between Labor ll.ates _. for . S11:ade Mold a , nd Ba, vana . llold. ~. . . . . \ .. , . . . . . .. ' . 'l!here , are mant tl;:1~ '1ri the Tâ€¢â€¢R& o~gf:lr situatiqn, . other ~l)ari thoae mentio~ed, _that need correct . ion. ll-1 _ o~ .. these ~~nnot be treated in . this aeotion; . bu~ severâ€¢l o~ tb8a will be ,. mentioned. . . . . . .. . . . The : labor ratea paid by te T c1iâ€¢~ industry ror 1.be making Q . t. . cigars by : the : mold are , ~ . need of . ~djua'-9 ment. :t . t~â€¢ p~ooeaa , t1'() typea . of tobacco . 11,ay be uaed tor ' the . . are.peerâ€¢ the ~a vane Wl'llpper or . tbe (im11flotio ~pper, . called . b-,callse it grown under a~t~n:~ c~al The labor rllte .tor the Havana molA cigara . ia . ao11a lderably higher . than the rat e . ror the ~bade mold, irhereaa ther~ _ ia but . little d1trerence 1n the de.gNe . . of d1 _ t~ _ 1Cu1V ttnc . ountered in 1â€¢k1ng them. . The low. rate tor sh~de m~ld .-_ wu :r~ed shortly -after ~lP and waa for .. tho ~. pose . ot dia _ couraglng . the -_ 11se ot the mold. It did . no t this aa . manufacturers . and workers . both liked 1:t on acco1int ot 1'8 increased produo.t1v1ty, ov~~ the n~nd proc~aa. Shade mamata~ t\lre?"s had lower co~t'5, a.nd workers had higher ~â€¢rninga w11ih 1 t. The mold process has been sat-istaotoey for. -.' the . shade . manu.:f'a _ ctui'era; but th~ 11~ 1 rif' advantag~~ should be ex~ended , the H av11na m~ld manufa . cturers by lowering this dif:fe~ential to a vecy small ~ount . . : . . . . . . . . . â€¢' 7 . . I I f r ..... PAGE 20 . ' ', . ' . '.. ' ' . . "' , . .. .. ' . . . 8 . . . . . . .. . ' . ' . THE CIG~R IND USTRY OF TAMPA . , FLORIDA ' . . ' ' \ J 8 ;rncre~s~d Employment of Women in Tenipa Cigar Plants . . . . . ' , The incree.se _ d employment or women ~n ~he ,cigar plan:ts . . _ of Tampa r epres~n:t~ a prob 1:e m, inasmuo _ h as _ the average ma1e worker . ~s a family to .. silppo~t~ ._ end . the average female . . work. er . does not. . Since 1330 . the proporti ~n . of w:~en employed in the ci g ar . plants of T~mpa ha~ increa sed rapidly. Figures showing t _ his increa~e a~e g1 ven ill: Pa~t V M>~ t of ~he . new . women-workers coming 1nto the , plants are empl oye . d in the c~g~1r1s.~1ng proces~ ~ rather than o _ th_er oecupa't~ons in the plant, a . few ~ being pu t . on cellophariing ~nd bandi _ ng ma:chine~ . , ~h~ti . these are ins talled. Most of the worl{ers e~gaged 1~ the c~~ _. garn,.akl.ng process 111 b . Qth machine and hand . plants 1n north. . . ' . \ . e~n ci g ar fac'!;or ies are : w _ ome n. . . . . Frankly . , the ?;rial~ ; c ' igar wo rkers of 'J;ampa ar e part 1y to . b ' lame ~or thi s t rend ~oward the 1ncre _ aaed employment . of _ wo' men in the . Ta,np _ 9: han.~ pla~t~ The . manufacturers have found i ~ t more d1f:ficult . to get along w1 th th~ male ~ worke . rs, col. leot1 vely and . ind~ v~dually, thap_ with the . f . ema . le w:orkers, and welcome the opportunity of increasing the ~ nurnber of the lat. ter . in their plants. The . wonien iri the cigar p 1a nts usually learn qu ickly 9:rid make Sf;it1sf1ed 1 s at~afactory employeesâ€¢ " . r . Anothel' reason f:or : the preference by . the me.n~factrers . .f<;)r women work . ers is that they do . not smoke in the . p];~nt, or . . take home free cigars each day. Thia results in a con~ider. able aatr1 _ ng over a period . of time~ ' . . . . . . . . I . 9 . iCua tom of Free . Smokers. . . . . . . . . . . . . One of . the 03:d custnms in the cigar industry of . Tampa that . is : ple~~ _ ant . fo~ the wo~kers , bu t . expensive fQr the em 2 ployer~ f is that of p~~i tt in,g : the unrestricted smoking of _ c iga-r~ l~ade ~th th~ plant's toba.~co) by the male workers, and in . add1 ~ion giving a . a.ch male . worker three f.r~e cig~~s . . each ~Y at the close ~f work. . . . . . . . .. . Th_+s cus . tom i, tarted .. in the early . days . of the cigar in. . dustry in Tampa, when eonditiona in the plants were . very inform~ . 1 . , th~ workers coming 1:n . 1rhen they -chose and leafing . . when they chose, . being regarded more 9:s . ~rttets than factory . workers. The tr~ating or the force to cigars each day hy the owner of the plarit was somewhat sim1la~ ~o the host . at a . civic . or social p.inction pas ~ 1~g refyeshments to the gues J ts . 'I;t was a.1stinctly : a .. s o cial custom rather than a l;msinees c1.1a~ . . toni. . . . . In . t he prosp~r~ua days .. of tbe . Tampa cigar industry, when many bu~ ii?-esses we~e l'dosely . operated; competition : ~as ~ligbt, and pro f'~ ta . and ~~gea 1rere high, th~ practi~e of free smokers did riot work a part icular h~rdship on t:tie industry-. T.he;re . . was pl:erity _ to go apound, and treating ,_ th~ workers . to th~ om. , pany ts ._ pr . Qduc~ ,. d ' id not worry anyone.â€¢ : . Ho\vever, cortd1 _ tiona : . have changed e~t~ely in the -cigar ,=. industry. . C9nipe-t1t:ion 1s . npw very keen, . and improved methQda . ~nd ef.ficiency ' have been put 1hto th6 successful . plantsâ€¢ . . . C . o&.,.t ac . c ountants , make careful checks of plants . ahd point out wh . ere a 11 ttle oan . be . saved here and : there .Those plante not . st o p ping the le~s are . fallil':\g b~hind in th~ compet . itive race It is a cas e . of y the survival of t he most efficien t. Under . such ondftions if on:,e group . of plant s. ha~ ~n expense the .. . ,' ... other _-plants do not ha ve, ._ this group â€¢~11 be g~eatly bandi~ .. c apped. ~e h()rthern . oigar companies do _ not per~1 t s~oking . ~n . thei _ r pia_nts by the workers, no~ do ~hey . give away ti-ee .'. ci ga rs daily to ea~li male . worker. Most . of ~ them _ sell one or .. more . bo~ es ,_ of . c i g ars .-. a t ractoey -â€¢ , cos-t; tq their workers once a : we e;k. _ This is 1~ keep 1ng w1~ , the practice in m~ny American industr.ia:1 plants to . .sell a 11m1ted amount o t their produc t . to tpeir empioy~es at c~st . No instances , are -: known of Am~r' . . -. . . . ' .. . .. PAGE 21 . . . . .. ' ' . .. ' . ,â€¢ . ' . . w . ' .. . . . " PROBLEMS OF THE T.AIIPi CIGAB INDUSTRY . ' I ' g . . ' . . . .;, . lean plants _ which _ peru,1 t unresti-1c ted consumptian or. their prod uct bythe worke r s during working hours, and in addition give them a stated &lDOUnt o~ . the . product each day. . . . . A q(?Jitp~~ati:on .. show1.ng the estimate<; cost o.f smokers to the Tampa Qiga.l' plants is given 1n Pa~t VI. . . . .. . .. . . ' , 10 Qual~ty ot Toba cco Used 1n _ the .~e11rpa . Cigar P , lents. . . f .. .. ~e cigar . workerJ of Ta11ipa feel that ~he cigar m:snutactur ers b$. . ve . r~sorted to cheaper graq e of tobacco . in recent years; which .. has pandicapped them 1n their work. The cos~ o~ the tobacco .. used in the TeJ?lpa . plants . for each year back . _ to . 1~30 1.s . sJiown 1n _ Part VI o.f the repo,:'t, 1.n Tables . 80, 81, 82 and 83. These figures show ths.:t. the total coat of the tobacco withoqt duties used in the Tenipa plan~s has declined since 1930, . most of 1;tlis decline ocq-urring prior . to 19~â€¢ the cost of tob . acco si nce . that year be,ing ~b~ut constant. . Doring this period there wa s a reduction in ci g ar output, and a shift in pr ' oduction to . th~ cheaper grades of cigars , wh ich should be take11. into c~nsiderat1 on. The percentage of total cost ot pro.. due ti~~ comp~is~d by to'bacco (leeli~ed but , sli g htly _ 1n the period. Less 1s 'being . spent for tope:cco now . by the Tampa pl . ants tban in the period prior to the depres , sion, . QUt about as n;nich as in _.. the ye~~s following 195 2. T.he re~uct1on .1n output and trend . to. _ ward lower price cigf:i~S would acc ount partly for . thi s .. redllction in t _ obae.9~ : cost. Advantag~ous p~cha:ses in the n,arket, where tobacco is . . s9ld . like . c;>ther staple :raw commodities, have been made by some ot the ~ompanieQ in . recent years. __ . . Repo~ts Qonoerning t}?.e .~ondi ti o ns . surrQundi _ ~ . ~h.e produoti.on of Havana tobacco in Cuba indicate that it has deteriorated . some. . . what 1n q11ality in recent . years, as a r~sult pf inadequate ~cien tific fertilization o f the soil and adverse weathel! conditions. Another problem Qon.fronti;ng the manufacturers is the method of appra~eing tne imported tobe.eco _ for the purpos~ of asaess . ing . . du t iea . . In the bales the . wrt1pper aJ?.d tiller t obacco are . mixed to. gether , it being . left t . o the judgntent of t . he e~s t~nis . inspector t o , de:te~aplne hqw much . c;>f the t obac.co 1s of the wrapper grade. Aa imp orted wrapper tobaoco t~kes a h1gher ~ duty than fil~er -_ to~cc~, this appra~sal may . ~ake . a co~siderable difference in _ th~ anaunt qf the duties and the . total cost or the . tobacco~ . A dr~stic provi~i~n in the tariff regulations . providea :that . if as much . a.s 35 per cent . of the tobacco in a bale 1s appraised . as wrapper tobacco, the whole bale is assessed at 100 per cent . wrappep duty . ~e power of making the ~ppraisal rests _ entire~y with the . customs inspeoto:r. .. . . . . _ This illogical method of appr~isai of tobacco has ~eaulted . in placing 1?.00 }. ffi1:ioh . p9wer in t he hands 9f' the cu stoms inspectors . . A si1g11t change in tbeir judgme . nt might . require the . payment o t hi gh wr~pper dut7 on an entire _ bale of toQaoco, inst~d or a low filler duty on the bulk o:f. it _ . Many insta;nces of excessi _ ve appraisals . have occurred. _. . ', . A di~cU:sai9n of. the conditions surrounding . the importation of tobacco from Cuba is contained in Part V of this report. Tables . 46 ~d 47 . . show ,the q~nt : 1 ty of Cuban toba~co imported into the Unit ed State . it ~nd at '1'811lpa, . the . . total . val;ue an~ value per polindâ€¢ anq. the diviaion pf , the tobacco into the ~lasses o f wra1,por . and f 111 er. , . . . . : . ' . These . figul'es show the assessed value per p~und of the im.ported tobacco to have d~clined s~nce . th~ . pred epressi~n perioq., . but : ~o bave be~n abou~ the same from 1931-19~8~ The percentage of a~s e~sed Wl.'appel' . to ... the total has . increased from . l per cent to 3 _ per _ cent since 1929, . indicating . that Tampa _ cigar companies are having more of . th~ir : imported tobacco classified as . wrapper, . and paying higher . du . ti~s t1ccordin g ;l7. r . . , In th.e produ~tiQn of . 1QW-pr . 1c . e cigars, some Tan,:pa ;manufac~ ers have : unqueationably resorted to a poorer gr&;de of tobacco. The . . . . . . . . . ' . L

PAGE 22

. . ' . . ' . . , . . I . . . . 1 10 . . THE CiGAR INDUSTRY OF _ TAMPA , FLORIDA . . . . . r . / . . ' . ' ' strong c _ otnpetition front' producers in other areas wl th lo\v~r ia.:. . bor costs, and the . un14atisf'act~ry c ondition of their . b~sineas, };laile almost forced this practillo~ing the old n,.ethods installed in their : Plant,s .. for a h~gb \ quality produc _ t. . . . . . 13 ~ Competition . From Machine . Plants. . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . ' I ' . . . The Ta mpa cigar plan . ts pave faced .. ~noreas ingly strong co;mpe. ti ti . on from . producer~ in other areas having lower costs of pro . dc. t1Qn. s ome . of . these . plants are mechanized and t.rn out low-pnice . . cigars at . e ma~~~ly . low cost . a . Tampa manuf9:ctur~ra ar~ finding 1 t di . .f'f'icul ~ to compet , e _ with their P8:J1d-maq.e . c igar _ a . agairis t ~ach'9ne mad ' e c . igar s . in _ the 1ow . -price range. _ Some of -t;hein }?.ave attemp~ed to . S olve the pr _ ob;J.em by _ g~~ting . machines . f'or their bunching oper ations, . and . ~ving the roJ . ling done b.,hand . The cost by this method is still h1 , gher than . :the . auto~tic ~ch~ne cost. It looks as _ though the Tampa ' manuf'ac . turers will have to come t9 the , ma tic m ach~ne f'or e.11 5 cent short filler cigars. . . . . . . . . . ' . . ..

PAGE 23

. â€¢' 'â€¢ -..: . . , . .. .. :: PBOBLEJIS OF 1HE TJâ€¢PA ClfrAB INDUSTBY I . . ' . . 11 .. 14 c~petiti~n From . . P~nts Us~ the Competitive Systea. . . \ " C " T ' . Ylh:1le -phe Tqipa . manufacturers have raced strong c(]1,rpet1t1on in their 5 cent cigars _ rroni-machine plants, they _ have faced a diffe~ent . kind or competition f or th&1r . higber grade cigars. As Tampa 1~ . inherent1y a production center . for high grade ciprs, this coinpet . it 1on 1a m9re seriou~ than the other.. . The. comp~titi9n is from pJanta in other sections of: the coun try,. notably the . Bew York-New . J'ersey-Penrisylv~a area . In thi 19 area the progreaa ive plants have improved on the . old Spant"lh ban~ system ~Y us~ a hand-prope 11ed tool , called a . Lieber,oan JnAch1ne, to help make the fi~1shed cigar. w1 th . thi , s L1eb.erc,,an .ob1ne socaae plants . use a mold, i ' n which the bunch . is pres . sad before being rolled~ . and some use a suction plate . to facilitate ~he rolling. . Another devi(?e _ ~equently used with t:p.is m~thod is . a sne1.l metal ob jec t cal . led a _ thimble, wh1 . ch }:las a concave surface rMJnd'Jd to s h ape the head Of the c igar .. Various combinations of theee aids are .. 1,1sed in conj\lctic;;n n . th . the l,ieber111Bn b~ching macli111e. . . The oontbihation o:f the Lieb . exâ€¢oâ€¢an bunch1.ng _ machine with some o r all .. of t:tie otper devices has .. resulted in a decided increase 1n . pro ductivity. Workers u8"ng this . s7stem c.an make more c iga _ ra than . with the mold system otth e Spanish . hand sy~tem . ~lthougb. th& wage rate is lower, . this hi gher productivity, enables . theae workers t o make ~rger e~rninga than with the o~h~r method.a. A group of Tampa manufacturer~ are de~il'ous or putt!Dg tb~a . method, : wh~ch is te~med the ~competit~v.e , system", int~ their plants, with the -same rate scales as are _ used in c;,ther producing areas. . They . claim that with it they can l~â€¢er their costs and; at the s&J11e . time increas~ prod~ct1v1ty 80 that t~e worker~ wil;J. ~ari;i c1go1~e. , . This has been done 1n the ~ ther centers,. anch ~onge=r unless ~hey are peraaitted to u se th~a compet~tive system and .reduce theil' . coats to the aame . leve . l as their competitors. They: _ bel!eve that with this a7atem t hey can op~ra.te at a sufficie~t margin of prof . it . tq be able to advertise acJ,equ~tely and 1mprov e their a~ll1ng ~eth~ . , ~8 jn turn should lead to increased . sales and pr.osperi ty for the panies, with more . jobs .. for wQrke?'~ when th~ . result-a of . the . system . be g ~ . to be realized. . ~e worker s objee-t to th~ lowerin8 or . the wage ~a . te and. the redu~tion 1n employment that the . introduction .. of ~he system. will ~ntail. Where the competitive system 1a sub at1 tuted for hand-work there would be a reduction ' of ~0:-25 per cent ~n t~e _ number of workel's engag . ed on the . ciga~s a:f.teoted by the . process. T,he msmtfacturer~ c1a:lm tha~ the . sys~em would , he.ye tp be . ~troduce!l grs,du-.lly , -_ as the workers need ~o be trained ro r 1 t .They believe that one dr two yea:ra 1:uuld be neces . se:ry to comp . lete its 1nata1lation in . the plants . T.his would mitigate , the . ~ffe~t of the ini t 1al unemployment; and . soon the qecrea~ed coats. shouJ.d lead to incI_-eased . sales . , . _ and . the latter . to ~xpended pro.. d u ction and 1n : ~re . ~ae~ employme _ nt. When the co~petit1:ve . syatem . was fi~st being tried they . offered . to guarantee . to the WQ~ers t n e~~ ave~~e wages dring the preceding year. . ~e ~orkers state that they are not opposed to ~Y sys-. tema . which will help the industry a nd not 1njur.e their own int er eats. _. They . have _ agreed to a olau _ a e in . the . new contract "111 ch g ives th e man~acttj.rers the right . to ins~all new sys tems, upon a wrltten , . . . . . . . I . "

PAGE 24

' ' . . 12 \ , <> . . . THE c/GA . R INDUSTRY . OF TAMPA 1 FLORIDA . . . . not . ice to the unions , fi v~ days before so doing. The questi<:>n of wage rates to be pa.lo. ~nder . the ne'.V! system . will then be t~ken up, and if not settl~d prpmptly, will . be referred _ to the Uni t ed State: ~~part)nent of La~or fo _ r adjudication. Th~ labor ~eaders . hope the ehange tc> the new system will be made gradually;, so as . to dislo cate as rew workers as possible, and that _ the busine~s advantages and _ produc t1on 1ncrea5e e xpec . t . ed of it w~11 . be realized. However, b~fore the Tampa manufacturers can expect to get th E same prodctivity from the ~pmpetitive system that the plants 1n the northern . ~r . ea are get ting _. , they will have to devote more ' atte1 t1on to the preparation of the ir tobacco. ~is is done triore care, fully 9rnd . scientifically t n the nprthern plants, a nd is in a bettc condition when i . t reaches the workers. . Manl'acture:rs arid . workers alike . will . a1~ o havo to cooperate in int~oduc1ng efficie~ctes and ~conomies in th e Tampa plants if . . the~ e are . to re , al _ i ze the full producti vi t . y of . the competi ti v , e sys, . tem, and be able to : oompet~ succes s.f'ully wit~ cornpa .' nies using 1 t. , 15 N ecess1 ty f . or S~abilizin g Conditions in the Tampa Plants . . . . \ , . . . The un _ stabl~ conditions in the cigar plants in Tampa have hurt . the . comp~ni es in se v eral waysâ€¢ . ~eir salesmen . have fo'll:lld sot buyers reJ.uct~nt to pla~e orders for ci g ars in . the Tampa plants . when labor troubles in them might delay or prevent t he . f11J.ing of . the or d e rs . 1!he~, buyers have he.sitat . ed to . place orders for sizef . . . or shapes that were . the s u bject of dispute between _ the manufacturâ€¢ era . and _ workers . The companies have been unable to make _ plans fpJ selling c i g ars dependent upon certain proc ess . es, ,vhen thei:r r 1g11t . to use the pr ocesses might be challen g ed . and taken away. Ne~ther could th~y pl9:n a _ n _ ext . ended adver~ising campaign fol' ~lgars that . . .they migli ~ t be tin.able to _ supp _ ly , when the time . c~e fqr filling thE orders .. . , . . . Some , manufacturers . have des ired to put in modern c;levices and improv~ents, but t;ne future of the c . igar industry in Tampa has appeared so un certain . that they have . hesitated . to do so. It has s e~med to some t ha t the inab ili ty to arrive at sat isfac toI'y w:ork:.. in g agreements . wi . th la bor would force them either t . o . clos _ e the ir . . plants, or to _ leav . e . Tamp a . U;nder . such conditions plant owners a _ rE not very . likely to appr opria te funds f ~r new equipm~nt. . . . Mo st _ of . the ci g ar _ plants of Tampa have been unable to operat E successfully _ in recent years . . This is . due to a combination of th~ . . .. cqndi tions mentioned in this section. Whatever its . c~use, the . fact ~tands out that they have _ not prospered. In 1938 the n~t . prof~t med.a by the nin~ teen Tampa hand plants was only o.05 per c . ep.t of ~he _ ir capi taliza:tion. The percen tage of ne _ t profit to in : vested capital ' of the Ta~P~ P _ la.nts has not exceeded 2.p per cent , .. in the last si~ years~ . V~ry few industries 1 n ' the United States c _ ou1:d opel'ate very lo~ _ with such a low rat~ of retu.rrl, Also, the ma jority. of the plants are actually . losing money. In 1938 onl:-y ._ si~ plant a out or tn e ninet een made any prof'i ts . at ail, the . other . thirteen inc-qrring losse . s. When two:.. _ th:i.. . rda of' the companies in . . any industry are in~urr irig defi cits _ in ~heir operations , sqmethinE ._ is _ ra dically wrong with t . he . industry. Con1plete figures showi~g the reeu~ ts _ of . operations _ c;>f the Tampa plants a re given . ~n Part VJ . Thes _ e f igures indicat e the se~iousness of the situation for tne hand ci g ar CQmpanies of Tamp~. _ It . is . evident that conditions mus t be changed if the . factories are to continue in Tampa. The nian~gement : of the pl.a . n . ts ~at : b~ perml tted ~nd encouraged to ~p~ernize them as C01?J.pletely as ppssib1e. They should likewise devote . their effor . ts t : o , 1mproverl: s ales methods. Above all, t he C . ci g ar industry of Tampa needs stable relatio~ . and cooperation between its labor and ~ cap i tai.. ' . 'â€¢ . . . .

PAGE 25

. ' . . ' . ' . . . . .. . . . ' . ' Part . II ' CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSE:S ' . ' . . . . .. .: In order to enable ~e reader . of this ~eport , to understand the proble~s confronting th~ Ta~pa cigar. industnand the national cigar industry, . explana~ion . of : the proces~~ S involved cigar manufac~ing will be g1 v~n. Inaa,,,uch as s01i1e . of the moat pressing problems of the . industry . a~e oo,ncerned with productipn processes, it is felt that a . knowledge of tnese is essential to grasp the sign1ficance -of the industry's prQ~lems . This explanation will be me.de for the I;ay1~1an rather than in a t~chnic~l manner . . 1 Coniposi tion of a Cigar. . ' . . ' I ' ' Acc9rding to .. an o.f.ficial clfi~ si:fication o.f the Unit ed Sta~es Internal Revenue ~eau, a cigar . is a finished tobacco product~ . produced for the purpose ot smoking and wrapped with a tobacco . covering. I~ . the covering is o.f paper . or any substan~e other tha~ tobacco ,, the product is c lassed as . a cigarette. The . cigar is compo~ed o.f two p&rts, the body and the outer coyer~ng . The body o.f th~ cigar is Cf!l.l . led _ the "l?unch". The to~acco comprising the body df the cig~ is knolf'n as "filler". The outer covering 1ray be a e ingle lea.f called a "wi 0 apper", or i . t may consist of an . inside covering known ~s a "binde~, wi~ th~ . wr&.pper over this. . _ . Ci~~ may . be classifi'8d as o f _ two types, , as far : as construo. t ion is .. concerned, long filler and ahor~ .filler.. In the long filler . cig~r~ . tpe filler _ c~ns~sta or tobacco lea~es or pal'ts of leaves as . long as the cigar. . Thes , e are placed together as . paral lel strips ot tiller equal in length ~o the . c~gar,and t~en rolled to form tbe bunch~ ~e sb~rt _ filler are made of br~~n or choppec;l up tobacco. These broken leaves may . b . e . from wra.ppers or from a . lcwer grade of tobacco . 11nsu1 ~ab . le for wxâ€¢appers . T.11â€¢ broken leaves used for filler ate sarâ€¢~t1ine a known as scrap. . . Higher . pri ce cigars are usually long filler. However, . sar,e short filler 9igars made by hand are superior t , o aoirie machine-made long . filler cigars. The t . obaceo required for long filler 1a usu ally more expensive than . that fo . P sh ort filler. In cheap c igars the filler . is usually composed of a low grade of scrap tobacco, frequently cut up by a machine. Some short fille~, made of Havana tobacco, makes a good cigar, and some short fil~er _ which 1a a blend of Havana ~d domestic tobacco~ gives a satisfactory ~moke. . Table . 1 shQws the percentage ort};ie _ total c . ig~ production of the Up.ite d States that was made up . o.f _ long .filler and abort filler in each year in th& period, 1920-1938 . FrQm . this table, it is . seen ~hat at the present time long . filler comprise _ s 70 per ce~t and short filler 30 per . cent . of the total. . In . 1920 long filler made up almost nine-tenths of . all cigars p~oduced. Since 1920 . it has de~ line . d to ' sev~n~t~nths, while tl}e proportion , of sh(?rt _ filler has iilcreased in this period .from about one .. tenth to three~tentru, . The inipro vemerit of short filler . ~ach~~e , resulting : i n a better . ci~ar and 1ower. ~ost o .f op ~ eration, . has ~ee~ . a major _ f'a~tor in infl-uending this t~end. . . Iri t~e . . mamifaeture o , f cigars three types . or leaf are needed, wrapper, . binder and fill er. When the cigars are made . by ~e S . pan iah hand pPoc~s~ only the ~apper ab,d filler ar~ requ~red. as a b . inder is . .not used. Tobacco for wrappers must be of a finer t ex ture ~luin . that uaed .for b'i.nders and filler. It ~st possess cer tain q~ali ties of c olor and . text~e, end be sui tabl~ for ,.1nifpi,n a11d ~atis:factory burning. _ . It must likewise blend well â€¢lth the other tobacco,, or be neutral in . taste. c ert a1n domest 1e . wrappers whi~h hs.v:e b~e;n deve ' loped w1 th a neutral taste, malce good c ove~dngs fpr Havana filled cigars. wtâ€¢apper has nnich to do with the , ' 1 3 . ' . ,

PAGE 26

. ' . . . .. . . '. . . . ' . ' . . . ' . ' ' . . . . . . , . . . . . ' . . . . 14 . . ~ THE CIGAR . INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA . . . . . . . . sa~eabili ty . of the . cigar. Bec ause . of the exacting requirements + w r apper ~obacco, as well . as a higher cos t of pr-0duc t10n, _ 1 t . . bring '. a higher : price than either . f~ller or 1=iinder. â€¢. . l~ th~ manuf~ cture Q.f cigars, tobacco ~mported f'rQm. Cub~, ' . ~oivn as Hava?Ul tobacco~ may . b.e uee _ d f.or both th;e wrapper and the . iller . Cigars inB.de entirely of Havana tobacco are knowa as "Cle Havari.a" cigars. ~e se conunand the highe~t prices in the market. A pract . iQe that . 1s . :f611o:w~d b y ma _ ny cigar ~a.nti.f'a~turers 1~ to use H~vane. filler iri their . c:,.gars, _ together with domestic . wrttp per and binder . A . type of tobacco . grown in Connecticut ea tis.fies the requirements o:f a good wrapper as regards a _. olor, texture and b'l'ni.ng ~alities, and is wide ly used for covering Havana filler Ano-:t;her type of t . obacco grown in Wisconsi n makes an exce llent . . l;>inder, and :is f requently used in 9onjunpt1on . with th~ coru:ie cti~u wrapper a nd Havan~ ffl ler. Because this domestic tobacco is grow. unde~ art:1 .fi cial ._ shade ' condi tion _ s, it is .' kriown as . '' aha.de" tobacco td cigars made w~th -it are designated . as shade digs.rs, and the producers . a . ~ shade 111anufac turers. . Ano thez. type of wrapper _ used b some American _ cigar msnufacturePs imported :rrom Sumatr~. _ Vari. ous blends of Havana tobacco and different k _ inds of dome stic to . bacco are used fop fill-er . by many manu.facturers . rrobac co :from Pu~rto : Rico and the ~i lippines is used to some extent , . the lat~ ter 1 n . lo~ graie ci gars. . .. It ' 1a : not posslbl~ . to j'\ldge the . quality of a cigar . by pa ssin it under o _ ne's nose and smelling it. Ci gars should be tested 1n regard to f~ve qualitiesâ€¢ b11rn; -~;roma; tast~ or flavor-, color., 8.IlJ workmanship. . .. . . . . 1.r a cigar ~oes not burn ~reely , . regardless . of . 1 ts othe~ qua 1 ties, . it is not a g9od one. ~Y burn is meant the degr ee of com _ bustibili cy . If the . cigar _ holde its fire several minutes without C' being puffed, and the to'bacco . is consl1med evenly : on all sides and shows np thick, bl~ck r1ng _ of ca~bon where the leaf meets the ash the burn is good . If cigars do . not burn :rr~ely , t:t;tey were . p~ob ably roll~d too tight, and if they burn on one s ide mo~e ra:t? idly t ha n t'.'p.e other, it is g enerally due to faulty construction, s-ch as be.ing rolled unev:enly. . . The aroma . ~nd f'lavor O , f cigar s sho~ld be pl~asing to the smoker. As _ tastes differ in this respect, no atandard Qan be g iven. . _ . . . . '!'he be~ t color for. a c . ~ g ar is :medi l.1in to dark brown. A . gre~n or pe.:le co lot may aen9te insufficient curing of the toba . cc . o leaf constituting _ the wrapper. . . A _ g~od cigar is niade amooth1y and evenly~ w~thout lumps or cracks . It should be firm or it will b ecome spongy. while being ::Jn10ke4., but ~ho~ld not be too hard, or it will n9t araw :fre ely C _ areful wor1qnan.sh1l? 1n laying _ the filler and putting . on the w~apper is nece _ ss9:ry to secure the best results. . . . . rt .. is a misconception tbl:lt da:rk-colo _ red ' ci g ars are stronger than light ones . _ as the color of t}:le w:r.apper has very . 1,-tt:J_e a:f. feet . o:q. the . atrep.gth or: the cigar. The ~ filler compris~s about .. . ni~--tenths . of the c ' igar, so has ~ -ntu.ch greater effec t on its . . ~lavor-. Impr oper~y . cur~d light colored w1â€¢appers m~y b~ _ stronger than ~ark ones.. _:. A t);l.tck cigar is considerably str _ onger t~a n a . thin one made . ~th the ~ame toba~co. Spots on tobacco are no in~ dication of. its q~ality~ _ as they might be caused by r~ln ~plashin op tl).e gr9wi . ~ l~a~es or occasi(?nally by . foreign eleme _ nts in .: the soil. . :.: . . . . ' . 2 Preparation o.r. . Hayana _ Tobacco in Cuba. . . ' ' ' . . . . . . . . . \ ' . The . sequence -of st epa invo1 v1ng the _ pr _ oduct1on . ot a clear Havana . cigar begins with the cu1t1~ation of the tobacco 1n Cuba Spe~ ial a ist~icts 1n t;bree Cuban provinces .' specialize 1n . pr . ing high grad~ tobe.c~o leaf ~ -These are: : Partido district, . in La Ha ban~ .Province; yuelta Abajo dis _ trict, 1ri P inar de1: Rio _ . P ' rovince; a:nd Reme d io~ . district, . in Santa C~ara Provipce. Wr a p. . . '. ' . . .

PAGE 27

. ' . . . . . . . ' .... . . . . CIGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES . , . . . . I . 15 . per lear :front . . tbe Vu~ita. Aba _ j _ o d:1~tr1ct represents . the finest ob tainable. La Hab~a oult ivatas . a sl1ght1y . less d esirable but 11ghter leaf. A third district on :the boun(1ary line bet1'98n Ia Habana and Pjnar del Rio . ie knoâ€¢a as ~en:,1-~elta and 1ts product ie part ioulâ€¢rly useful .r or b1nde'l' tobacco . req~irements for certain pro oea~ea ot Havana c~gara. llo~t . or the filler used by . clear H~vana JIMlIIUf~ct~era .. a . P~rtido . or . Vuelta Abajo dis tricts. -. The Santa Clara province ~e,wa , . a type of .filler which is most adaptable 1n Havana ble~ cigars tor â€¢h~ch domes tie or Sumatra wrappe _ rs a~e ~ae _ d. .. : . The anni1al ~rop ot _ Cuban tobacco . begins with the . aow1ng ot ~eed . around Sept . eâ€¢be.r _ lat . . . Severa:. plantings ar . e u~all7 aade in a bed .,. o _ f . f inely pulverized soil,. . Approx1ma tel7 o~e month laterâ€¢ the young . tobacco plants reach a height ot ab out au 1nchea . an d require transplanting . The pl~nts attain a averag~ height dt . three . and on~~ha lr .feet at ~aturity. : Wrapper tobacco ia groaa under a~~if1e1al Bh~de provided by specially . woven cloth or ala . ts. Filler and ' binder leave~ ar~ us11.S~ly sun grc~n. Th~ latter types , are dark~r and heavier th.an wrapper. . The . tob acco . plante~ Septemb~r 1st _ 1a r~ady for cutting . $b~t _ Janu~n lat. T)le ha1vest l _ n Jan:uary conaiata in c . utting and drying m _ a~ure leaves~ file to bacco leaves ~re gathered strung by paas11)8 a need:).e and thread through the heâ€¢d or th~ stems and left . to dry f,rom two to aix . ---... . weeks. The rapidity or this drying p~c : ess dt;,penda to a large extent on tlie weather conditions. Ai'ter drying. the tobacco 1a placed in piles to sweat the leaves. . . _ . . . The next step . is . the ' fielq se1ect1~g a~age~ Tb : e t-obacco 1a transported o field p~cking houses where skilled sort and grade it, â€¢~cording to length and t~xture. Leaves . ~1e sepa rated into "handa" . cont~ining . troâ€¢ .forty t _ o s~venty ieave de. pending on the grade, about fifty being the ave~age. The bands of tobacco ~re then packed in bales protected . by burlap and the 9ark o.f palm trees, the h~~ds be~ng placed out _ and th~ le&Tea 1n~ sid.e for protection. Il.l the baling; four <;>f these hands are put togethe~. fon,,ing what _ is kno1 11 . as a . carat . " Eighty or '2aese car~ts make up a bale . , which t~us contains about ~,ooo tobacco leave _ s. A bale of tobacco weighs about eighty pound~. At th:fa stage in the . operati _. oha,, . about . mid-June, the Tampa manu . facturers or their agents malce .. their purchases. If the manufact11rers operate warehouses. . in Havana, the tobacco which cannot be used 1nnuedia t ely or W1 tl'lin several months is stored. During th is time it is subjected to sweati : ng. 'This is part1cul,&x'l1 connrion in the case of wrapper _ tobacco . as the ~einoval of . mu.s t awai . t delivery :to the Tampa ,racto ry. Wrappe~ tobacco is not stem med in Cuna. A d1.f:ferent p;rocedui-e is .followed for filler wi1ich is frequently ca~ried through th~ stex;nming or stripping in Cuba. The . costs . of: strippi;ng . 1 n Cuba . a.re lower than 1n the United State s, but as the import duties on s t . enn,,ed t obaoco ar~ h1gbf3r than on unstenu,1ed tobacco , this . tends to offset . posQ-ible savinp fr om Cupan str1 . pp1ng. : ,. . Stripping of . the fiLler tobacco starts by wetting the tobacco leaves and all.owing them to stand in . a mo1 stened cond1t1 on over. night. using a . hand operation, . wor~ers remove . .fl-om . the . leaves ~he . lower part of the . stem. Th e machine p _ rocess is little _ use4 . 1n Cuba but . is widely applied for stripping dobiest1c . fill.~r 1n the United _ States. . Havana :f1 . iler 1 s strip~d by p.~nd in Tampa. Arter th~ _ stripping is completed, _ fil1er tobacco is , deposit~d iJ:l barrels and stored fo~ a period of time while it ~sallowed . to age. The length of t~is ageing period : varies _ with tlie type and condition of the tobac . co ranginp: from several months to several y~ers C~b~n to~acco . is uaua~ly shipped ~ia P~n1nsular a~d Occiden ta~ ste~rners fr . 0111 Havana to J>ort Tampa~Pl~rida. Uni tee,.$tates cus toms inspec~ors at T _ a nipa eJrarn1:ne the incom,-ng bale . a, . claaaify the ~obacco as wrappe~, filler or sc~ap and 9:sse ss the ~uties. Each of these Qla~sifications requires a differ.ent tariff : ducy. The problem involved . in the _ appraisal of the imported ~obacco baa been . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . ' ' . . ' I

PAGE 28

.. . . . , . .. . ' , . , ' ' . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . ' THE CIGAR IND USTRY OF TAMPA , FLORIDA 16 . . . ' ' ' . . . . . . . ment io;p.~d, . . and will be ta~en up later in Part V o..f the Repo~t . . .. . . . . . \ . 3 Sources or Domest ic Tobacco us ed in Florida Plants. . . . . . . . . . ,_.... . .. . Most of the hand . cigar plantt' o f Ta 1 npa . u~e Bavaria tobaceo ~pprte _ d from Cuba. . While the clear . . Havana cigars are ma~e . eritirel ~ .â€¢ o t Havana tobacco, the shade rnâ€¢~~tac~ers ot Tampa use a . w1-apper grown in . the Unit~d States with a Ha,ana filler ~ The â€¢â€¢â€¢chine plants in Florid.a use domestic : wrapp era, wi . th domestic filler or, for _ their be tter c).g~rs, a . fill~r niade of domestic tobacco blended with Havana . tobacco. . .: . . ' . An ef.fort was made to raise Havsna tobaceo in Y.Lorida in 189 1 . . . whe;n some s~ed was p 1anted near, Fort Meade. One good crop result ~ f . r~m t his p _ lanting, but no . ~ore. I t appeared that . th~ ~ir~t crop took es sent ~ al . _ chemical elements .from the soil, which co . uld not : b ~ replace d. . . . . ~e be .. st type p -r c,.omest1.c wrapper is _ grow11 1 n the Co~ecticu valley. Havana . s eed 1 s .used in , the prod'1ot~on of tlii s tobacco, . w }?,.i ch 1~ g rown unde . r shade conC,.itions. These wr~ppe rs have an a t tra c tive color . and a very . smopth ~d even textur~; and . make ex cellent ci g ar cov~rin g s . Their . ~aste is . neutral, so when filled w it h Havana .r1 1ier, the smoker gets the t'ull effect o.r the Hav9na t ob a c co . So.me very high grade ci g ~rs a~e .: rnane w ith Connect!cu:t . ~ r ap pers over Havana .fill er . . . . . . The s had e plant s . of Tampa use Connecticut wrt1.ppe . ra .for their cig ars, in connect i on . with ~avana r1 i 1er . The machine plante . in Fl oridalikewise u se Connecticut wrappers . for the better grade . pf cig ars p~od ced _ . . .. A type or wr . ap p er is also grow11 in West Flor . id.a and South . G eor g ia under sha:de. ' This . does not ~ a _ v e . the quality of the CQn. n ec . t1cut wr , apper b u t is . used ori cheap c 1 . gars. The . machine pl~ts o f Flori d . a., in Jackso . nvil.le, Tampa, _ Q;(lincy arid Qther . Pl~ces , use i t to a g reat exte ~ ~ on their ci.g a~s , .. below . the 5 cent price range , , . In conjunction wi.th the ~omestic wrappe~s, domestic b1n~erQ . a re used. The highest ~ype of domes : tic binde~ comes fyom Wiscon s i n . . It . is use~ by . the 'i'ampa . shade producers and. rr, the larg . . e r mach . ine pl~~s in Florida. It . makes an excellent c ombination wi t _ h a .. Oonnectieut wrapper and Ha-vans. filler for a good cigar. . Binder t obacc o . is also produced 1n Connecticut in consider. able quant1;tie . s, but th:18' isnot as go<;>d as __ that pr9d~ced . irl Wi~ consin . . A "mall quent;i ty of binder tobacco ~a grc,w11 in Pe p nsyl. venia and 1n mid.c;l~e ,res:tern . s . t~tes, wich 1s not equal in q1.1ali ty to either the Wiscona . in or the Connecticut binder. niis 1s . used on low price . cigarsâ€¢ . . . . . Most of the dome~t1c fillEtr tobacco 1 s gr~wn in Pennsylvania , The . ia rge northern ~ ma~h~ne . . plenti, use this extens iv , e ly 1n thei:r oper$.t1o~s. It ~e.sults in a type of c 1ga~ quite different from th e Havana cigar, mi lder 1n ; taste , = and appealing to s Olllf3 smokers .. , but not to the Ha vane. smoker . a . Domestic :filler tobacco is grofin in Oh.19 and se:yera _ l othej::' midwestern ' and ~iddle Atlantic st9:tes. It 1~ likewis _ e grown in the . West :floridaâ€¢South _ Ge9rgia district. Some of this . 1ast named filler is used in the Florida ma . chine ; :plants, . chi~fly in Jackson~111~ and _. Qu.in.cy . : Cigars . made w.+th domesti c .tiller are ~;n the low price range, and : do not c~pare 1 n quality ~1 t}1. the . ' Havana cigars~ . . . . Fi J: ler . tobacco . fretâ€¢â€¢ :puerto Rico , and the Ph111ppines 11 used . by some American . cigar . plants . . That from the . latter . area is o.r a lower . grade than the domestic :fille~ ~se . d. Cigar author1t . 1es _ ~v , stated that the qualit7 of . Amer1ean cigars is 1 c,wered b7 the use of this cype of tiller. One of ~e larger Florida machine _ plan ts us . es ' th:1 s for blending w1 th dO)Jlestic filler . . . .. . The compla 1nt baa been made . by , certain :orthern c~gar 1 AB nutacturers tha t c _ igara mad e in the Philippines w1 t h f:b:e 1ow . grade tobac~o produced . there . and the cheap labor ~f. the !~lands are brought into the uni tc.,d Sta tea, du~-free :, . bande . d wt th AiJte . r~can cigar trand a, end sold as . Am~rioan cigars . If this 1s true, thi s unf~ir compe tition should be stoi i ped . ' . . . . . . . ' . ' . PAGE 29 r . . .. . . . ' . ' ... . CIGAR lfANUF1CTURING PROCESSES . .. .. ' . I .. . . .. \ 1'1 . . . . 4 In Tab1e 2 the d~~st1c , produot1on . '~ ~obacco used aa wrap.. per , bind _ e~, an~ '. fi l l er _ in cigar plants throoghout the cDtry :,.~ shQllll, toge~her w _ ith its average price p~r pound. Table 3 a~ows . the production and. vâ€¢lue of ,rra.pper and .fill~r tobacco graw:::i in Floridil in reoent yttsra. . . : Prom these tabl.es it car. be seen that 1n 1937 n,orida p~oduced 21 per oent . or _ the dc;m1estic arap~r tobacco . ~odueea 1n t~e United . St~tes , . having an avel!age . value . or . t. 7,5 pe~ pound : ,. as com;.. . pared with an a verage. pric e or t .87 for aU domestic wrapper to bacco. Likewise, that in this year Florj.da prodticed 1 17 per cent of th:e filler _ tobacco gre, . wx1 iri the unitf;td States, with an average {>rice . of t.13jper pound.as con:ipared with a nat . lonal average or 1.10 per pound ro~ ~1ller . Florida's wrupper tobacco thu.a has a lower price than that prod~ced . in oth~r part s of the countn-, but . its fi~ler tobacco con111aai;lda a higher . priceâ€¢ .. : . . . . . . 4 Pr~cet,aplg ot Tobacco 1n . the Ta11ipa Piant _ s. . . When the imported Ha,rana, . tobacco fi-om .: Oup~ arrives 1n 'l'ampa, it ramsina _ 1n a . ting at th~ warehouses a . Plants is done . almoa . t : ent1re:i7 b7 women, a~ 1 s the l . ~we . st . p~iq operation . 1n the pl~nt. . . , ~ About ~ . per cent of the imported :filler tobacco received 1n the T~pa p , lantlr has been s . tri:pp~d in _ Cuba , so does . not require th~s -; 9per~tion 1n Ta11ipa . The proportion of tiller stripped 1n Cuba has d~~rea1Jed: ~ recent years ; in 1929 being as high u 48 P er cent . After the stripping operatlon the . r111er is stored for curing. It is than blended lri a aP.ecial -dep&rtment, . or ~ixe-d 1ri th tobacco .trom ot~e~ p1antat1ons. TJ:>Sa blend1ng _1s for ~he purpose of giving di~.fer~nt tastes or .f . la'Vora to cigars. Each ~â€¢â€¢mJfstctur e . r has his 1nd1vid11al .fornn,Jae for .. the blending of' cigars. These blends have usu~lly bee~ kept abqut _ the same ~or many ye1a: aâ€¢ ocoa.;.. sionally new blends being useC,. Be ' s ides bl~nding Havana tobacco~ mixed blends ot Havana and domestic tobacco are also ,1sed. ~e method of blend:tng the tobacco _ in the Terf1pa plants is not ' as sci entific . as that used 1n most northern plants . I n the T~ plants the dlrterent kinds of tobacco which are t.o be bl~utled are weighed iJl correct proportioru, and then m~ed toget~er in a big . _ pile and . shu.ftle d ano. re shuffled by hand. . ~en ~'.pis . operation: is finishe~ the pi.le as a whole c~ntains the 99rrect blend, but there is no certa~nty that the 11me 11 qua ntity go ing into each cigar is perfectly blended .Northern hand cigar plants give ea . ch c1pr maker a quant1 . t7 of q1t.ferent kinda ~ fll ~ ler a nd let nim blend it in exact proportions tor each c~ at . h~s bench. Jlacb1ne plants . blend their tille~ in mixirig ma~. . _. The w1i.pper tobacco is , all l&ipped in Tampa. When ready . to be used it goes to . the casing room, ~he~e workers called "cle~ks" loosen the leaves in the h&Ada and prepare it . for stripping . rt , is moi~tened ,n water, or aprayed i1ghtly with wat~r~ and . tlle.n _ allowed -to atcmd a _ few hours i>r overnight. After this . 1 t fa ready t'or stl'ipping .. In this operation . the -e~tire ~enterste,,, ia re moved, , leaving _ the tw ' o halves which _ ar~ to be ueec1 aa wrappeJ'd for cig&l'a. . . . : ... :. . In tJ?.e nort)lern plants the right and left bâ€¢n~ leaves are separated . into two pile.a which ar . e given to c!;tt:rerent o _ perators1t By working n . th . rlgbt _ band ~r left : ham wrappers exclusively the ro11 er~ : 1n these . plant . a are . able to roll raster t~n it the two â€¢~re no t separated . In the Tâ€¢ipa pla _ nta the r1gbt nand and left hand . leav~a arenot QU.ataâ€¢â€¢:r.1.ly separatedâ€¢ . . . . Aft~r the wr~ppers have bee~ strippeq, . the . rapper le&ves go ~o the se 1ectors. These a:r e workers skilled in types or tobacco. Ther _ g r~de the wrttppers and determ1t;te the class of cigars with whic . h they are to be used. . In doing _ this attention is .. paid to the size ' . .. . . . . . . .. J . l . . . . . . . PAGE 30 . . I . . . . . ., . : . . . . ' . ,. . . . I .. â€¢, . â€¢. . I t . . . . . . 18 . . . , . . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, FLORI"f)A . and shape of' the : le~ves, the color, the prominen~e of the side veins and other aspeo~~ of' t~xt:ure. Class ifioatio~ qf the wrw.ppeJ l . eaves is comple~, .~ince ._ a .fJiotory makins ~lear Havana cigara fre, _ quent1y ha~ 50~100 _ sizes and shapes, each of which needs~ sp~o1a: kind of' wrapper!I se lectors are well pa _ ld, with some . vari~ti~n . f~J thei . r . skill . ' There are f . our classes ot selectors in a plan~, the . r1:rst . two worlcing 9n high-price cigars, the third on medium-grade and the fourth qn 101' , ~grade cl gars. . . . , . Misc ellaneous . factory workers assist in the op~rations 0011. nee ted w 1th the handling and t>repara t ibn : of' . the tob~cco .. ' . > ' . . ' . . . . 5 Clas s1f1cat 1on : o:r Oigara1&~ing. Processes~ . f . in the subsectiona _ _ of _ _ Part lT which follow, the different processe s used in _ . cigarmaki~g will be explained bri. efly. A . classification of th~se is given a:t this . point, after .,Lich they . will be taken _ up individually. Thia classit'ication is given in . Tab 1 e : 4 . : . . . . . . , . . The _ classifi9 _ a~ion shows the separati~n bet,reen . ~e provessoe used . for . the long . t1ll:er Sll-d the short . tlll er c.igars, . the former beipg ~ostly _ hand methods; and -. the l,i~ter mostly macl11ne : me . thods. Lo~g fille _ r DBI;1-u.fe.c tur1ng pr~~&.sses have grad~a1i1 . ev~ly~d ttom ~ the . old Spanish hand qyst~n, under Which the cig~rs were _ ma.de en t:i~e~y by one operator, t o a .. ~i ghly ef~icien'.t lolig .fil l&r tnachlne, which makes : the ' ent 1re cigar. Ahoth~ r hand method : , whtcb. is .taat. . . . , . er than th e Spanish hand method, iawith t~e _ ua e of ~ ino ld. With thi:S proc~ss : the :; b,.1nehm~ker, oi:9 'l'Or~er m~i~ the ~ ~,inch, pl~oes it 1~ . ~ mold to flh:a pe . it, thus sp~e~ing up ~his process to the .: p oint wher e two rollers, or . work~& put:tlng on the _ wrappers, ca~ . be k ept busy. The subdivision ot the hand mold . into Havan,i: and shade refers to . the , respect . iv~ wrapp~r$ . u aed. . . . . The : Compet1ti ve sy steni is , . ~he one . ,1tted in n~ther . n hand olga:r plants, being so , termed beca,ise the companies using . it , a:1'e . the '., atr ongest competitors of _ the Tampa . cigal' ind11st17, and by th~ us~ of thi s ve~y produet . 1ve _ syste~, are c oria1 atently gaining groqnd or. the Ta~ipa industry. It is what might be, called a sem1-tnae . )l1ne . process, in w};lich the bnchmaker use~ a LieberrtJBp hand-bunching ms.ohine . , or rubbe~ apron which . is hand operated and per1111 ts . a . faat opera~ion in the rnak1ng 9:r the bunches. Othe~ _ devices, such a s molds . , suot 1on ' tabl:es . to .. assist the . :rollers by .. _ the u.se of air suotit:>n . , and th:i.mble _ s., or sma1 1 metal device~ to sh.a~ . the head o1 the cigar. . ~ may be use _ d with it~ , Thia is the ~ystem s _ nme of .. the Ta1npa manufacturers 1JOUld like to install;. in ~heir plants. The 'l'empania dl'llm _-_ mo , ld . Sy.EJt~ w:as lnv~~ted by a Tampa ms.nu f'aot Ul'er. i t is similar to , 'I;;~~ c _ ompetitive system in that . the , . Lieberman hand-bu.nchmaking ms ~~n~ : is used, ~t provides for a large revolving ~ruin with mold~ in ,: wlu,ch the l?uncbmaker places the bunches _ , and the . t'o1lers .. _ r . emo'Te . tbee _ e atJ the drum revolves toward them ' . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . The aut omatic machine fc;>ze long . tiller cigara is operated by f'our workers, end ma _ \cea the comple te c , i:g~r. It . is not ue&d ,. in Tampa o~ to any ex.tent in the soutp. . . : . . . . Among the . short . f'1 11er process . es the :.aJ)d mold is very siJ11i lar to . the l , Qng til ler hand mold prooe ss. . a lttsi, . prop.uctive : and hence more expen~1ve proceee than the other two for making . short filier ci gara . , it . tends to be . used on . . s . m;newhat . p.igher grad e . of cigar : th~n th~ae. : . _. , ,. , The macb:!.ne-btmched, hand-rolled _process~ used on ~hort fill~ er cigars, is where tbe bunches are . ma d~ entirely by . a machine, : while ~he rolli , ng is . done . entirely by hand. . . . . . . . The ato;n;iatic short f i1ler machine is operated by _ two workere f:3-nd haf:1 the . lowes . t cost of . any .. c lgar menuf.aetUI'ing proces s. . It is wt,de ly used tproughot the . count . cy OJ'.l short tiller cigars, . being U:Sed by the ma.chip.a . cpmpa.;nies in Florida. . . .. For the . p J,1.rpos e 0f a.dmi . nis taring the inte rnal revenue tax on . ci g ars, the B~eau of' inte rn9:i Revenue has divided them into :five . . . ' . . . . . ..

PAGE 31

' . . . ' ' CIGAR JIANUFACTUBING PROCESSES . . . . ... . . . 19 ' . _ class ea~ â€¢~co~ing to their selling price. These classes are com, . mohly retarrec1 to, in disc1.1ssions ot the industry. The classes, with their selling ' pric~a, . are as :follows : . .. . . . . . . Class A~ 5 cents a.nd leas "' j Class B 5.1 cents 8 . cents .. . ' OlaSB c , e.1 centli 15 C&.nts . . . . . " . . . . Class .. D 1s .1 .. cents 20 cents .. Class : E . Over 20 cents . . .. ' .. . . . . ' . ' 6 Spanish Hand . ~ooess of Ci~n;;ak1ng : . . . ' . . . . . . . . " .. ' . .. . ' . . The . ~~dest know~ method ' P~ ~king ' ~!gars 1s _ by the Spani~h . . â€¢. hand _ prqces . s Thia 1 . s a :_ coiâ€¢[plete band system, under whicll all the . cigar111ak1..ng operations are performe 4 by hand, , nd a11 &.xe done by one worker~ It is a . handtcratt pr9cess, . somewhat similar to that of the old . ham ap,nnera . Jnd weavers'" ma111 ,.,ara a.go. _ llhlle interes ting, 1t hâ€¢a . s:u~rseded in . prod~ctiv1.ty for soae years by newer . processes inâ€¢olving the uae of mocbanical devicea,and by maohi hes. . :tt ia used DJUCh more extensively in TamPfil then in any ot}ler c1ga& "â€¢~1':lng center~ . . . . . . Th~ :fa1110us cleal' Ha~ana c~nter~ . at Key We~t e,nd T~â€¢upâ€¢ were . . started _ with the . Sp~ah hand method of mak1118 cigars. Dae to the limited product1v . ity of worker:, under this process, . its appllcat4.on has be~n restricted largely to high gr~de _ c~gars. . . With the process the only tool-a needed by a cigar11u1ker . are a special harclwooc;t board and . a . curyed ]?life. . In the traditional Spanish hsnd prooeaa~ no . binder i~ used, _ only th~ . filI:er and w1â€¢apper. , _ â€¢. . In ~he factory, ... c~ge.rtâ€¢"9~f9ra . are . se~ted at table~ u~ i:l,J oh r~sts their. work board. ~ey are gi:ven supplies o . t . tiller, binder and wrapper to~acco . I~ the northe~ cigar plants. . all â€¢terial is sued to woi':tcers is checked 011re.tu:J_l7. . Il\ the Tampa plants the wrappers and binders are counted . when issued. but n9 caeok ii, . made . of . the till-er .. I~ W0'1ld be contrari . to an old custoa . to _ weigh . the filler in . the Tampa _ plants, and 1 as sueh would be _ resented by the wo~kera:. Much . was t . e . or .filler :ls :report~d. . A g~ug e ia pr~ vided to pe~it meaaure~ent ot the thi~kness ot the cigar. and a rule for measuring its length. â€¢s an . initial operation, the er . !'irat ~rimsthf;t wrapper . to . the right size. _. He then f~l@â€¢B the buncll. taking till~r l~aves ~n hie pa,nd and . placing . the lâ€¢ves : one by one in parallel fashion so that a . draft for smo~e 1 _ s . oreated~ The cig&l'111a~~r vers ed -in ~he Spani~ hand _ me~od _ views . hia work as an art and is proud of hi~, abil ity to judge ~he ar . rangeJâ€¢â€¢â€¢nt ot . filler by "the . feel of the ham. 11 Each leat 1 : a . so placed that the tip ot. ~e leaf 1~ always . to the bur.not the . c~gar and the aide veins upeaax _ -d. and toward the . 1 e:rt. After a:rrang1.ng _ the _ b1inob. the cigal'â€¢â€¢â€¢ ker roll~ . the . c igar, sta~tiing at the 1 igh ting e~ ar . "tuck," and finishing . at the end whi:ch goe . ~ in~o the mouth, mich is te1mad the "~ead" of the cigar . . In coq,leti~ th~ . head, th~ wrapper 1s . pasted th a little guin t~agacanth, a tasteless. gluey . substance which i s obtained tron, As 1a. . . . As . e&ch co~l.etes SO cigars, he ties them in a bundle and places his niunber thereon~ The number providea the bas 1s tor tabulating the cig~l' rt,aker 1 . s wages . under a piece work sys tem. ~t the end of . each working day the cigar . s are .. collected by employees who come around with hand trucks on which there are t~ys. The . cigars are piled on these, ~Qlle . d to the elevator, and .. taken doa:i tq the inspection room,. ,rhere tbe _ foreman ~xam1i,es them the ~eJt:t ~or~lng . In ~he northern cigar , plants the workera bring theirfinished . cigars. to a table . in the working ro . om twi~e a day~ and the fc;,reman inspects them as they are brQught in. saves tll.e ~xpense of eo1 1ec1;1ng tbe cigarsâ€¢ and likewise p . evxâ€¢iita defects in ~o:rlc!nat?-ship to be pointed out to cigar,11skers i rnn ediatel.J'. In the .. Tampa: plants the rore,,ian is ' prohibi _ t~~ by custom ~.m m~king but one inspeQt . ion trip ~ach . day th:i-otigh the plantâ€¢ this . . . ) . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢' ' .

PAGE 32

' . 20 . ' . . : . . . . . . ' ' . . . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY O . F TAMPA, FlORID.A ' . ' . . . . . . . .. be1 ng : xnade about . noon. Re may thus be unable to corre . ct the de. feet . Ive worlt . of. any ._ ciganna , ke~ until a day and a half has elapsed .. af . ter the cigars were ' made .. On .. h~s 1 . nape ction trip . ~rough _ . the . cigarmaking room , .. the _ ro~ema n ~ . at a1~0 be careful n . ot to p _ ick ~ up many ciga:r;-s f or exam{ria _ tion f~ _ qm an7 par _ ticular worker, . -. or : thii,:t . ' ' . . ' ' ' . . , ' . would be re . a anted. . . . . , . . .. ' . . Pick _ ing and packing , ~eamwork is ~ the next . st~p .. UndE;r . tb,e . Spanish system sti11 . generally . uee~ 11'.l Tan,pa, . workers serv~ in . . pa.il'.'s, one picker . and : one pa cker compos:Ing a team. For this work . the men are equipp~d . with broad tables and . good _ light!~ r.ac11:: ~ties. The picker is ~killed in pick1ng _ out 50-100 . dif:fer~nt colors of Ha"'?ana tobac co . As 50 cigars of . a uniform colo~ : a~e . sorted in . a p:11~ ~Y the :_ pf cker, . hf~ ta _ ann11a . te, the pac~er; t akes . charge and pr.operly az-ranges the c~ gars in a pox . The 'bqx ae.;;. lected . ~or the ,_ pack _ ing must contain the _. proi : er "front ma~k-" _ such as "p~rf~~to", n panatela~ , nc.orona'", "queen . , etc. ':Phis front mark iden~ifies the pa~ticula:r s i~e and ~ _. shape contai:n~d~ . . : .. The picking a11,d packing by. . the . Spanish system involves a . . grea:t am ~ ont . of :wo:r~; . on ac~ount ot' . so~ting the eigat's into : 'jrla11y ~ d1ffer$nt . p"iles . It cati be se en th.at sort :ing . into so~ . 100 : piles and . then packing each pile separately requ1.ree much tinte. In .. northerp plants of all types and ' '-n Flor . id.a ,machine . plant-a, the . . packing ~s ~one by: th~ .' Amerio~ ~ys _ teni . . ... Thia requi~es only one worker . ~nstead of _. two. This 1nd1 vidual f'1Tst div . ides the ci gars . irito six piles . , according to shade , and :then . pack~ ~eDJ., 119licing f'urther separfj_tion according . to colc;,r, . as he , packs : the _ ciga~et~ .. .. .The . American sys . tam of packing . : 1e far more . econoni.1.cal than the. . Spanish method. Und~r , the lat . ter system the p1 ckeJ' : r ecei ves .$1.10 and . the . packer $1 .. 10 : per M cigars, above. the B c1ass, ma k1,ng the _. combined cost$2.20~ A_s con:~raste _ a with this . cost : , ~he ra . te r9r p1ck1 . ng and packing . . the same qtml1 ty cigars by the Ainer i c~ system; called gr.a.ding _ the _. ciga.rs , . is $.so .$.90; . : .. .Atter the packing -. Qperation the packed box of '" cigars goes : to a table where bands ~I'e put on : ea~h cigar. Thi s nece~sitates . . . tal;cin."g _ . the ciga~e ~om the box, bu~ they are ;r _ epacke . d ~Y t );le banders exactly as , , they were found, In . this . same oper at1on each cigar is placed . in a ce l:lophane wrapper. The box . of . cigars â€¢. is now ready for the affixing of cance J.led ~e:venu e stamps : as . required by . the Bure~u of Internal Rev.e nue. . ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . Mac _ hin~s t . o put' . . on the bands _ e.nc;1 cellopl:;1s.ne are in. us e in pr~ct . ically all of the northern cigar plants, . and : ar . e likewise used in the Fl~rida mach~ne . cigar p~ant _ a, and some of the hand plants in . Tfltnpa . some plants : also have machines for putting re v.:. enu.e stamps on the boxes . ~ T.he~e is a . great saving through. the use of machines iriatead et ha nd labor . :for these . operati ori~ . The b~djng, . cellopba~ 1ng . e.nd stamping . ope~a t~ons a~e usually done by . wonien . . , . '... . . . . . . . : . ... . ' . . . . . After th~ . packing operations . are finally : co~leted, the poxes of cigars are p1a : c.ed in a .' . storeroom which 1.s usua . lly h1.~!"id:i.f~ed, .. to keep th . em fresh. . They ~amain :tn this storeroom unt11 sh1pp~d. . The . ~orthern cigar . companies pay more ', atten~ton to proper air. conditioning of the rooms 1n which the1r . c1.gars are stored than . 1a do~e . in Tampa, as the cl1rns te o:f this city makes a:tr -condi tion_ ing -. unneces . s~ry. _. . . . . . ' . . . I . . . . . . . . . .. .I ' . . ' ' 7 _. . Hand. : Mold Proces~ o:f Oigartrieking. . ., . . , ' .. . . ' . . . . The han d molo. proc es s Of . ~1garmaking . originat~d in . an effort t . o improve. on the producti:vi~y of the Spanish . han system. _ Molds first c _ ame int o u~ , e . 1n the four~~ quarter of the . last century, b~t their use was . no :t widespread ntil after +~ . 10.: Th _ ey were used then in Tanipa to a . considerable ~xtent and proyed popula:r, _ the . . m~~ufact~ers li~ng the -. io . w~r ~ost . of l>roduction w~icn they per. mi t ted, an the workers ir hi gher ear _ nings : with . thett1. . . In the mo1d process the _ c1ga.rmakers work in teams of thre~, . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' ' ' . .. CIGAR if ANUFACTUBING PROCESSES . ' . ' . . .. 21 . . . . , one buncbmaker $. _ nd t~o ro1 1e~s~ The bun _ chmaker keeps the two . ro11 ers supplied wit~ . bun-ohes and . they. put ori the wrappers~ The bunch maker pla~e~ . a special . b ;nder leaf' around the . fi : ller . to tmiij. the . bun(?h, binders Qeing eoessarywith ' molds. . Tb~n, as each bunch is flnlsh~d. he inserts it into a mc;>ld.This device consists of two . wooden blooka ., in wh1ch o1gar shaped recepts:cles have : been carved. The ~olds are . ot . two . a1zes, some :ho~di~g ten c:tS&r . s . and . twen. ty . After th.e b 1 inchea . have . been placed in the molds, . if' open molds, they fill'& allowed to set . a certain leng . ~ of ti~. If closed molds, . a top is place~ . o~er them . and . pr&ssur . e applied in a mold . pre ss. After a period . of ten-twe~ty minute~ tp.e t op is take~ off . the mold end the bunches ; are re ~ ady for the rollers, ~ â€¢hose task 1 t is to .. pu. _ t_. the W'.l'&pper on and finish the cigar~ Rollers ua ~e . Ternpa plants ar~ tre~~ently e~per1enced w1th tJie .$panish ~â€¢nd p~o cess a~ . perf 01,n the opera~1o1' in tpe ; s~e . 11anner , , . only taeter, . as t~ey ha~e but one . ope~at1on . tq do inst~ad of aev~r~, ao can attain a . gr _ ~ater speed than with ~he Spanis . h me-thod. . ';l'he b,1nch msk:er also ha s a greater speed because . of the spe-c1al,iza . t1on ot . his work . The . mold ~r. ~ce~s ies g~od . example of in~rea~ed producti vi ty due to di vision . of labor. . . . . . : In th~ northern factories , hand 11,ade . long _ filler cigars ~re . made mo~tly by mold. In the Tampa plants, the mold la uae.d ~o . a fairly large extent on long fllle~ cigars. wh~le al+ abort filler hand-made ~!gars are _ nia~e wit~ . 1 . t. . . . . . Havana and shade mold difter 1n tbat . the . forli:tdr has a Havana . . . -. . . . , wrappe~, and . the latter a . domestic wrapper . In the Tampa c1ga:r 1ndustcy ther~ is a rate problem involving these two," datiM bâ€¢c~ to 1910; . The mold _. ~as co~ng into use ~ n Tampa abot t~t t1ae . and, thlnki~ it wou1d detract :rr _ om t}:le ~nd pr~c.~ss, e:ftor~s were made to discourage its use~ Th~se to ok the form or _ placing a low rate on .th~ labor used . in _ making shade mold ~ 1g~rs, the only k1nd , marie at that time by mnLd. Molds soon became po~lar and were used with Hav~ . tob~cco_The rate for . Havana mo,14 JMa fixed at only . $1 .oo less . than Spanish hand, which . ~as . much higher . then shade . . . mqld . . The -variation 1rn thes e rates may .be , seen tr _ Oin the .to~lowi ng illustration: . . ' Retail Price . of c1g"ars 1or. . ts 2/25_ 3/50 .; . ' . .. . . Havana Size . l1old Rate . 4 : . 1/ 1 ~ X 39 ll~. 00 4 3/4 X 42 . 22~00 . 5 . l/4 x 40 3 . 4.00 .. Size 4 l/~ X 42 4 3/f X 43 . 5 1/4 X , 41 18 .. 00 . . 24:.00 . This differential is . enttrely too high, , and should be lowered, ' . in _ fatrness to . _ Ha:vana mold p:t'oducers -. . Su~estions ror . thia are c ontained in Par~ VI+ of th~ Repp~t. ~t . might be menti9ned that Havana molq producere 1 1kewise haye to ~y an impo~t dut7on th~ir .. wrappers -_ , to whic~ the s}?.ade mold , producers ~re not ~ub ject. . . . . . . . 8 C _ ompeti ti v~ ProcefJs of Cigiirt,I8k1.ng. . . . . . . . . " . .. . < J . .. . The : compet1.t1ve s 1-~~em of ci~ manuia ' cttire , is ' oonn,tented on f~equently 1n this Report beca~se of its importance to the future of the . T~n1pa indu~try. As . e.xplained; this consists . of teamwork by a bunchmakt,r and . two rollera . w . orking tpgether as a . teâ€¢ of three, with the aid of' a Lieberxr1&n hand-h11nching mach~e . e1Md pos.. . . . . . s ibly s~veral other mechanical aids. The .. bunchmake~ . ne kes the . bu;nches with the hand-bunching machine, which .. ~s a . simple bunch. rolling d~:vice made of rubbeP. . First, the _ binder is placed in . . . . . this am then the filler. The handle of the machine . is pulled and the . b !rider ls qulclq.y . r . ol~ .' ed around the rille~ , for . ming the bunch. Molds, either open or closed, . may be us~d with the systaaa, if this is desirec;l. A suction table to aid the I'ollers may likewlae be : u s~d, if des ired. ._ A .' sucti9~ tab . le has . perforated metal plate for the ~olllng, undezâ€¢neath which la air suc . tio~ to assist the op e . rater. SJ'QSll me ta 1 devic e . s, with ~oncave ends, called thimbles, are us ed in some plants to : shape and smooth the . head of the ci g ars. ' . . PAGE 34 .. .. . . . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . .., . Tf[E . CIGA R INDUSTRY OF TA . JIPA. ,' FLORIDA .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . There is no '1;nifprm . ity _ among the plar;,.ts 1n the northern area with _ regard to the :. u~e of these devices . to . assist the Liebeniian: ha.nd-bun$1ng mach,ine~ ~ol _ ds ~ re used in so~~ Pl . ants an:l nqt in othe~s, suction . table~ are . used . :t>y s ome pl a _ nts and no~ by others, a nd thimbles likewise . rt dep~nds on whether . the workers have . been trained to use t h ese _ devices, in which ease t pei~ us~ would . increase produ c t i v:i. ty . If t hey ar e tulfami~iar wi ~h :_ tbeni, the 1r prqductivity is _ usua'l1:Y hi g her w~th out them and tpe plant does . riot use . them. In one . Ne-,r . Jersey plant, . some workers in the plant u se ~olds, others . do no . t.. In another New Jersey plant t}le cigar makers on one s1de of the working room use suction . tables. while thos e on the 0th . er Sid~ do not . Exper1~nced cig&.J'!MSlcers state . that they are ._ hindered rathel" than help ' ed b7 the suction tables. _ . Tampa cigar manufacturer s are interested in _ the co~peti~1.ve . sy ste1'1~ and wou~d like . to u se i . t in th~1 r pl ants . It perini ts a . 1 ower prod u ctiqn cos . t for t he trianufacturetand high~r ear~ings for the . workers , t han . under t he han or mold sj-steme . . . Al ong 1'1th the competitive ~stem the 'l'ampania proce ss wui . be described, as 1t is . v~cy~1m1lar. In this process, the Lieber man hand-bunch ~ng ms : ohine 1 s used, in conne ction : with . sue tion _ . tab . lea , if desil_'ed. ;H ' (?Weve~, .: in pl _ a . ce _ of regul _ ar molde, ther~ .is p~ov . ided a ~arge revol ving d~, fitted w1 th mold receptacl . es, which _turns 1~ a groove lat eral~y ~cross the working tabl~ . 'l'he bunoblf)aker ai ts on . one side . of : the -. table and the rql ~ lera . on the qther ' . . As . t~e bunch.maker finishe-s hie bunches he places them 1~ the mold r ecep~e.cle . s on the 1dle el, whic;h . slowly . turns as . the s~ are fille . d. The rollers on the other side take them out as needed. As there ar . e fffty receptacles in the drum â€¢heel t6 . r bunches , al)d these revolve in a complete revolution before re.ach i _ ng ' the rol . lers, they are pressed ~n : the process. _ A smll ~1fe on the drum cuts off the tuck, or lighting em or ~ach cigar, aa it revolves. The Tanipania . process was inv~nted by a Tainpa manufacturer and ia still in the experiment . al s tage. . TJ::\e c ost o.r install in g th _e c ompf3tit ive . system is a"Qout $, 25 per table fc;,r each teem of . t h ree workers . . The cost of puttin g . in the Tampania ey-stem 1s a b out$ 75 pe r ta b le. . . 9 Bun~hing-Ma~hine, Hand-Rolling Method~ . . Th.ls ia e. : pro' ~ess wbi~h us . es a machine tor perf~rming o~e _ _ oper~tion . in cigarniak~ng, and ' ~~ the other done by hand. It is used . ~nly on short ~ fill~~ cigars, of a cheap grade. This bunching ma chi~ is a power machine which . mak~s the completed bun~ , being . operated by one worker. . . . For the operation the -short f111er ., is ~t into a . hopper on t9p of the machine . by a worker in the plant , . ~h:o keeps a g:r _ au.p of . n1achines supplied ~i th filler. From this position it is :fe . d or forced, _ in small quantitie~ . sufficient f'ol' a _ cig~r, . into a dep~es sion . in a . canvas -' 1':)el t , used to pu _ t on the binder. A binder : is sup plie~ by the . o~e.r~tor of the mach~n~ . _ for each ' bu _ nch . of fillef, _ as it . re . ac~es a cer~ain post. t1on. . The _ machine wraps the binder arourrl the t.iller 1n a r~lling motion end the bunch is made. No labor 1s .required . in the ope:r&;tion ot the machine except to . teed : .1'111 . er t obe.cco irito .: the hoppe . rs, and place ' the . . bind : ers. . . When .. . c ompleted tp.e bunche s are p~aced in closed molds and . . pressed , for _ about twenty minutes, after whi~h they ~re given to h~-rollers who _ p~t otj; the. wrappers . . One bunchinS maoh1:n . ~ nil _ supply . bunches for e ight tQ ten r911ers. and keep them busy. : . This process 1s u . sed in a considerab le ni1mber . o rTe11xpa . plant s for lo~ gr~de .. short r1 11er ci g ars. Its chief appeal is 1 ts ~cono n of operation, yh,-ch is greater . than a ny .or the hand or sem . i-m~chi r . methods . ~owever, 1 t is ~ot as e . conomi cal as the automatic machi n e~ The bunching-machine used in thi s .. process may be the same ~s is us . ed wi t h a rollin g machi n e _ to forn1 a . c omplf3.te a-t0111e.tic mach! r m akin g the e n t ,:re c i g ar , . S o me : plants f i r _ s t u~ed pnching-ma chine s wit h ha nd~r-ollers , . : th en inst al led rollin g . m achines to g o with the ll an d m ake the e n tire c . i g~ r auto m atically. . ' ' . . .

PAGE 35

. . ,â€¢ . . CI~AR M ANUFACTUBING PROCESSES 23 . . . . . . . . . 10 Automatic Machines. .. . . . ' . . . Short fille . r . aut~t io maohi,ies for me.king the' entire cigar . were introd . uct:td in . 1912 and l~ng filler machines 1 _ n 19l 7. FQr a . n1..unqer of years both were in the experimental ata ge , . but aoon :lnipro . ved t , <;> a h ' igh C,:.egree efficiency. By . th.e early 1920 s the y . were being use.d slicaess fu!ly. Il_i 1919 . 2 . 5 per cent . of the . ciga _ r product1Qn of the Uri 1: ted sta tea was ma~e by machine aâ€¢ By 192 5 th:J.s had . 1~c;r~as~d t~ 15 per cent. . In 1929 3~ pe r cent of the c ig~~ production was machine made, and by 193 . ~, ov~r 80 per cent of all the : cigars manufactured in the United .' States were made on machines . Tab le' : 5 . s?ows the ma~hine and bend . produe t . ion of the ditfer en t cl asses of . c1 gars. : It is se~n . that . 87 p : er o : e~t or Claaa A cigars are JnQnufaoturf;td by machine and so pe~ cent of Claaa B cig ars. G lass . C ha . a 65 per cent of its production st . ill by h and, while the hand method is ~ sed. entire.ly for C la~ses D and E . . cig~rs . _ These figures show ~ how far the cigar }dtistry baa gone to ward mechanizat ion in the two decades since , nmoh1ne s weN first us ed. . 1 . . .. . . . . 'f}le ~ong ' filler mac~nes oo.ve tended . to l>e ,1se~ most . ~ in , , northern plants:, . and . the . short . f"ill-&r . machines by sou thera J>l.anta. . he short .tiller :a,a~hine 1s \lSe~ in Tmnpa and elsewhere 1n . j _,r1da it will be des . eribed , f.irst. . . . The short filler machine is really . two â€¢â€¢cl':l 1ne1 carlblaed.t.he bunching machine that has , just been ~ascribed~ ana. an autClll8.~1a rolling machine placed next to ._ it, ~d used ' in co;njuncti . on with . .... 1 t. Whet>. _ the bunch : 1s eompleted by . the . bunching half of t.b 18 machine; instead of being tak~n out and . placed 1~ a mo _ l~, lt is left in . the machine and . carried for~ard to the rolling section to be wr . app~d. On the way the â€¢. he.ad is . ~aped and the tuck tr1nni1ad off. The opera tor . of . th1 s . machine , places a w1apper on : the . 11:â€¢apper die f . or eacl;l c1gai 1 , â€¢~~re 1 . ~ is neld clown by . ~ction em : cut to the desired _ f~m . .. It 1s . then . carried forward to . tl;le wrapper de vic~, where . the 1:>unch . is re~olving thr~ f1uted ro . liera. , . Paste 1 ~ appl~ed to the en~ . of the ,r~pper, after ~ich it 1 ~ rolle9 . around tha revol ying bunch, in a spiral ; motion, ~ ttkrt1ng fr oni the tuck end. Af'ter being wrapped~ ~he ci.gar is shaped, . the head rounq.ed a~ the tuck cut. off a . t the pr~per length., . all by machine operations. . It is ~hen . deposited On the . insp~ctlon .. table . . . .. The . short fill er , ma chine . la . operated . by two . worke~e, who mu.at work . togetbex, with close _ cooperation. , .. The speed of:' the maohine . can be . regulated to the spe~d o . f the . o~erato;tâ€¢s , ~ One mechanic is required to . .serv ice titteen sllQr t tiller ma chines, . ana eigbt long fill~r 1z1Aohines, where a large numb~ r or them $re . used. Ill an eight-h our day the short _ filler . msch ' ine can . turri out -360~6000 . __ cigars , the average 01:1tput b _ eing about 4200. . . , . Toe . labor cost of making e. .: 5 cen~ ci , gar on . a . a.hort . fill~r ma chine is mu.eh less than by . any other ~ thod; . b&ing Jl . 70 peP ~ M, a~ comp~ed . with .$7.36 b7 t~e . machin~-~ched, han~~rolled procem, and $9 .60 by h.and. . . . . . . . . Tpe long tiller aut0111at _ i~ ma , cb,-~e is . more . . complicated. tb&n the short . f1 ller machine, re qu1r1ng four . operators . The nrat ot these feeds th~ l9ng .r1 11er . on to an endle~s belt, tr11111ng i t to the de S ir.ed length~ . The quantity : of :fil~er necess . ary . for -. each cigar is the n mea~ur~d in ~e DJ8'>hin!), fbld the ~esired ~uantity sep1rated . from the rest and shaped as .. . to . general . si ze, .. :P,ead a n d tuck. The f.i _ ller:, . iri : th.e shape of a _, cigar~ gcie~ _ .fc,rward . to recei v~ the b~nd er. The second . operator places the binder lea. on the binder die, wnere it is cut to the . correct shap~, and then carried . on to th& . belt . The end of . the . binder is dipp~d in pas te and rolled arQ.upd the : fi11 er to :Corm t~e bunch. ~s is fur . the~ shaped by rolling before .. going ~o the wrapper . The third ope ra tor cut~ the u:. 1 e.pper to the right shape on the wrapper die in the same ~ ann~r aa the _ . b inder. ,. 'ltas cut . The wrapp e r _. _ c~rrie r then t~~es _ 1 t to tl J e w:â€¢tJ.pping . ' . ' . . ' .. . . . . ,,â€¢ .. . ', . . ' . PAGE 36 . . .. . 24 ' . . . . . .. . .. . ,. . . . . . . . . TB$ . CIGAK INDUSTR Y OF TA.JIPA, FLORIDA , . ' . . . \ . . . . . . . d~v i ce, where it receives a su p ply or paste an~ is ~i1 ed ar<:>und the bunch . . The . c~gar is : ... ~isain amoothfd . l;)y rolling, cut at . the ~ck end, . and d _ eposited on the inspect ion table. The fourth . operato~ examines all cigars, . pl~ e1 ng them ~Ii racks for the packer~ . : This op . erator likewise patche s impe1;9fect cigars . . . . Operators on ~oth . short filler and long filler mac~ines have . been mostly women sin c e . machine . a were _ fi~st put int9 use . Hand cigar work~rs . as a rule .. hav:e not been emp . ~oyed . as ciga~ machine op erators. . '!'bis has .. _ res u lted in the displacement of . a numbe~ of . old ! ciga~akers, and . the . e:mpl9yment of new workerf;J, T.h is situation is discussed later :in the Report. . , . Mec~an1zat1on o~ t~e cigar industry has affected the number . and size . of .taa . tories producing cigars . . Before the tntroduction of machi nea, a large proportion . of ~i gar produc~ . io.n was in _ !'mall fac to~ i es, while e.t the present time over ha].f . ot the total pro, <3:uction .is made in large f'acto ries. In .. 1920 there. ,rere 11,323 . cigar plants . in the Uni t$d Ste:~es, while ;n 1938 . there were : 4 _ ,~~7 Mech~nization of' _ the c igar 1ndustry h~s a1so influenced the . trend toward the eons,1n,;ption of low price cigars, and : in t'UJ'n ha . a . . ' . been influenced by ~t . By 1oweririg production costs . to . a very low . . . . . . . . leyie1, it bas xnade ava . il.a~];e t~ . the c9nsi1mers of the country a larrge _ . supply of ._ low-p:r.1ce ciger s equal . in ~ali t.y . to higb~r priced ciga:r.s of . fox,nar period~â€¢ : 1n ~urn the increasing ~~JD8~d -ot con8\m~ 1 ere for these low~price . ~iga.rs ha~ r~sulted 1n ari e~pansion of . the operati Ons ' of the ma _ chine companies. . . .. . . . . . . " .. . . , . . . 11 . Compara tive . Costs of Different Pr(?ces . ses. . . Some compaPat1ye figures w11~ be cited to show . the relation of the costs of the vs.Pious processes. . . . . . I ower :J_abor cos . ts on the short . fi . ller machine have be&n . . ' mostly re.spons ible .f.or the increase in : the . production o~ short filler, ~~ the . labor _.. costs _ fo~ s _ h9rt filler _ are 25 per cent . leas . . than for lqng :fi ' l ler and 64 per . cent iess than th~ band process. .. .. Some figur e~ t~en from a s~udy m8de by the United . Sta : ~es . Bureau of' ' Labor Statistics are ... given t . o show the labor require. ments . of the . diffeJ1ent s _ yatenis 1~ man~hOUTS 1 ~n c . ig~ tac . t . ortes .. throughout th~ col1ntr.y. Table 6 showa the comparative amounts o r ~abor required _ pe r _ M for 5 cent cigars, by the hand prooe~s . . and . four~Qper.ato~ machine for . th _ e 1ong .. :r111er cigars ~d . the ma, . chine~ buncb.ed and . twoopera tor . ma chine . for the ' . short filler -. cigars. This in~ludes all ~e l~b or us~ . 1~ the plant, .. such ae . leaf' . pre . pa~ :. . rat~on . , ._ stripp1~, . olg~rtrJaking, pack; 1ng, c.ellophaning and banding, box labeli~ : and m _ iscellan~ous laboJ-. . . . â€¢. . . . It 1.; se ~n fr . om this table th.a t while ~be hand pro,ess . re' .. quires a total of' . 33~38 man..:.nours., _ the four-operat . or ma cM:ne requi . res only 15.96 man-hours on loiig fi , ller . cigars. The labor -re. quired ' for long .fill . er ma chine production is tbus . 47 .a per cent . .or that required for long r11ier _production ~ hand . P . or th~ . , short . fil ler eigars the labor required by ~e t~o-operator â€¢â€¢chine . is . oxy 43.1 per cen t . of tnat . required .by tht, machine . -~unched, . h and-rolled meth od. ; . . -:. . . . . .. Comparing the four types o-r opera~ions, it is seen that the hand pro ce ss :ts : the most expensive ~ Tpe macbine . ~buncl:;led~ hend-rollec m _ ethod . re . quires only 83 . 4 per cent as much lab _ tjr as the ham pro . cess, the four-.ope:rator . msoh~ne only . 47 .a per cent a s . much; end ... the .. t~o-operat . ~r ,na~~ine oril;y 35. 9 . per c~nt r aa much. . . . u _ ~ing the :. aver . age .. wa g e rate paid :t).~nd cigar work.ere 1n the . U nite d St~tes$.35 pel_" ho~, it is ~een that the la b . o~ cost of' . thâ€¢ han d p ~ocess 1q 5.55 mor.e per _ M than the me.chine-l?unched, harid roll.ed proc e ss , . :J..5.64 more per M than the . long . filler ma~hine cos : and $19.61 . mo:re _per .M th~n the ahor t .. r illep i:nechine cost . T.b.ese differe n ces 1n .. labor, co . eta . r . epres~nt subst~t . ial item~ . 1~ the t : ota : c ost o f manuf ~c tli n g cigars . . . . . . . . . . ,._ .. . The prad.uctivit , y o-f th~ bunching rnsr.ll1.n e i . s about 4 ,000 o1. g ars in an e1.pPt.:. hour _ day, of t~e short filler automatic machine . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . PAGE 37 . . . ' . . CIGAR MANUFACTURING PllOCESSES 26 . . . . about .4:, ~oo ., . and . t ' he lQng 1'1ller _ maoblne about 4; _ 200. . In . addition to labor, the operati9n of the mach11:i.es entails other expe~ses, suo;ti . aa _ amortiz.ati . ~n, power an~ light, repairs, 1 0 11 . and gre as e, and matntenance costs. The annual operating costs of . the se for . the bunching machine arid the short filler 11w.chine are . g1 ven in Table 7. . . '11li1s showi, that the . annual operating cost of a bunching machine, exclusive of labor, 1~$300, and the annual cost of a short filler machine, exclusive of labor, is $770. The annual oper~ting costs or a long r1 11er machi~e ~ere . not obta inable, b~t .' th~ operati~ costs . pf M cig~re are shown in Ta ble s . The tot~l machine costs of operating s. long filler 118Qhine on 5 cent cigars . amount to$2.56 per lf. . A detQ ile.d s~at~ment showihg comparative cos ts of . mai;mtactur ing a s : cent cigar : by the machin~ proceiJs, combination macbiue and ba;nd process . , C-ma~hin.e-burtched, . ha _ nd-:-rolled), and hand proce~a is show11 in Table . 9. . . . Thes e :figures we~e pr~pared by the . Un . :i. ted States Department of ponunerce, ~d . are taken f'rom a ~eport on the cigar ind,1atry. They include _ plants throughout the country, In this statâ€¢â€¢~nt coats are sepa~ated __ into materials, labor, ~iso~llaneo~ and over head. It is seen that the ~achine plants . have th~ . higheat cost for ma~e-rials, . this amounting to $16.89 per M, as . compared with ..$15.86 for the comb~na . tion machine . anq hand plan t~ ' and fl5.0l for the hand : piants. The cost Qf tobacco is b~gher in the machine plants than . th~ . others, ind~eating ~hat a better grade of . tobac co is used in their operations . . Boxe~, J.abe:;ts, and cellophane cost . more . in the ha~d and col!lbirtation plants. . . . _ The hand plants _ have a mu.oh higher labor cost than the others " , this . being almost thr~e t1m&e as great as the . iabor co st : for me ma chine plants, an~ ~bout 50 _ per cent greater t;nan the _ ~~bor cost in the . oombina~ion plants. The . labor ~o st pel' . JI +n the hand plants . is $1;i .as, _ as c ompared; with$7.50 in . the . combination plan~11 and $4 .18 1n the ltlac hi~e pla~ ts . . . . . . The cost t:or . stripping i s . bigher . in the me , chine plants than in the others , while the selectors cost . in :t , he . h~d pl ants. The paoking cos ts$ .so in the . machine , plants, as contrasted with $77 1~ ~he combination plants . , . and$ , 1.10 in the }?.and p _ lants. Other employees e11ghged preparing the ,tobacco cost . the machine pla.nts $1~ 13 p~r i. ' The , bi gg~st items of laboJt cost for the band ~nd combination plan~s are ror bun:Chinslcing and rol~ing, which c ost >-._$8.61 ~or the hand _ p~nt~ .and $5.54 for . t~e oo~binatio ~ ~lants . . . The . miscellane . oua and overhead costs run a li ttle ' higher in the rilach . 1ne and comb1nat1~n pl'1-nts than in th~ han~ fa _ ctor1ea . . _ on . ~cc~unt of tpe exp~~ses of op~rating the machines. Thia cost ~s 62 for the JJ19.chine plants, t4~oo fo'J' tbe c0i1ib t . na . tion plants, . and$3.00 for the hand lant s. The . machine pla . nt . s have the low, . $27 .36, and . the hand pl&;nts the highest costs:, 29.66 _ . . A careful inspection of the foregoing tables will make c . lear tlle respe.c~i ve . cost advantages . of the d+f~eren . t typ . es . c;,f naehine . . . px,oces sea. . . . . At the present time aut<;>matic ~1ga1'b1a~ng machines a1e not ~old, but are J.eas . ed. Th~ ins ta llation che.~ge for a loJ1.8 filler machine _ is t4,600 _ , for a complete short filler machine t2,500, and for a -. bunchi~ mac~ine, .$1,500. In addition to this there is re. q~ired . an ~nriual rental of t750 for both ~ong filler ~nd short fi . ller machines, or, . a royalty based on production, of $1.00 per M cigars prod~ced.If . a company uses the n 1 ach"l;ri~s regul~rly, the annual renta~ bas is . is the most eco nomical type of contract. If the ~ae is not regular, tne royalty . per M oigars manufa~tured is . the bet1t arrangement. , : 1 ' \ 1 , , 1 4 ., . There are in Florida 41 _ 7 ~hort tille~ ,. ; ~chin~s~ , l _ ong ' filler ma c~nes . , a~ 177 bupching machines . '1'fi ' l'dcatt9n . 9~ , these is shown f'n Ta.bl e 19. It . is seen . that the largest nunfbe:r Q ahdi-t filler machines 1 s in Jacksqnville, and the next largest 1n TaD1pa. The lare;e machine plants . of the S1'ishe;r Co~1pariy in J~oksonville . . . . . , PAGE 38 ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' . . I ' ' " . . . ' . . ' . . . . . . T]J.~ Cl(lAR : INDUs rar OF TAJIPA , . FLORIDA . ' . ' ' . I . ' ' ... . . .. e:nd the Havat,inpa C _ ompany in Tampa . operate most o~ t hese machines. A~ost all . o~ the bunching ~chines are 1n . ~ampa, soatt _ ere _ d t~ugh tne hand plant s, witn some used by tpe Hava~ampa o . ompa~y. The ~ong r-1ller machine has never been used . to any . great extent 11'.l Florida . . The fo~egoing ha.a . de . al~ with the o~parative costs .: ot the dif fe~ent types of ms~h~rie operation . as oompare~ with h~nd operat~on in cigar plan:ts througho11t " the United S tates . ' . . ... Inasmuch : as the Tampa . cigar ind~t:ry . i~ essent ially e. hand in d u stry 1 t w111 be . . dt tnt~rest to oomp~re . the . respective . costs of . . the vari o s han q. process~,â€¢ . . .. . , . . . Data concer??-"ing the productivity per hour, . p e r _. a-hour d~y, . a~d p el' 40-hour we~k un~er the Spanish hand method~ the . hand , mold . meth o u . , _ and the meohine-punched, hand;..rQlled method have .b _ een ga~here~ _ ~rom the Teirxpa plants and appear in Part VI of this report . . Table i02 tn Part . VI, shows these figuresâ€¢ . Dat , a concerning the p~dduc.;. .. tivity with .J!;hEi use o:r the competitive method of cigar. manu:fil.(:t-ur-: .. _ ing were ge. y1ered ill, the . co~rse of . a f'ield trip through . nort~ern . plants in ;N ew Jersey. N . ew York and _ Pennsylvania .. While several . T8JJU)~ . p . lants ar . ~ _e:Xl)er1m _ en t . 1ng wit~ the comp e . t1t 1v~ method, _ .. the1r ~ opel:'ation~ are not ~om.plate enough t _ o be fully repre sentat 1 ve of _. ' . . . its produc ti vity. The plant-a in t;he northern a~ea have used it on . . a large soaie for some . tim e . . : .. .: j . Table lOl in _. Ps:rt VI, s~ owJ tlle . ac~a ;i. prod u ctivity -â€¢ . ot .. c~g&:J'â€¢ . tnak-ers in ~ampa . during a 12-month -. period. Howeve,:. ~ as moat 9t _ these w~eks did not include a ._ tul~ 40 hours, a more exact basia O f comparison can be 01:?tained from the figm, es 1t:i Tabl.e 102, which . : was compile~ on . tne b~ sia of exact . hours, 8-ho~ . day~, &:nd 40-hOUl' w:e~ks. Because or 1ncomplet e pla11:t records, 1 t was impose 1bl:e to g et these ~ta for all of t~e pl~ts . , but the ones Included repr~~ serit . the. _.best ~opera ted pl~nt . s in Tampa, â€¢. a:nd po.s sibly have the highes t pro~~ctivity }?y _ the .. pr~~ent ha11:d methods. . . ... . These findings s~ow that ' , using . t~e Span1 sh hand method, _ eao'li . '11ampa ciga..~ker _ in 1938-19~9 . }!)roduce~ 1~. _' 35 c _ igars pe~ hour, 106.8 in ah 8-hqur dayâ€¢ and 534 _ in ~ -40 -hour week. Und er t . he hand-mold method ea ch worker produc ed 20.44 per hour~ 163 . 5 . in an a~nou.r day, and 817 : .6 in a 40-h . our week . Using the machine-bunched, hand_ ro1led. method, 42.58 cigal's . were pr . oduce d per hour by e~ob worker, 340.6 in an _ 8-hour da and 1,703.2 1J?. . a 1 40-hour . week. ' Accor~ing to the 1n.vest . iga:t1on of. â€¢. the northex-n cigar compa.. nies , the ptt : oduetivi _ ty in piants using the . competitive m . ethod of . cigarmakirig ranges ! m 250~50 . cigars per ' cige.rmaker per 8-~our _ day. ~ere were f-11St~nc~s or: still higher p~oductiv;ty . in s~~e . of the p1~~s. Pro~u.ct1 . v1ty under the syst en1 varie _ s witp. the type of c1 . ga%' a~d the co~d1t ion of the tobacea . . I t this average of . 250~350 oigars per day is .compa;red with . the ~amp~ ave~age , ot 106.8 _ for t he . Spanish hand me~hod, and 163,5 _ for the hand .mol4 method, . 1 t can be seen that . t}?.e comp~ti ti v . e system 1s much m<;>re producit1 ve . t h . an the harid me thods used a~ present in ~ampa. It is undeztstood . that the . present product ivity of the workers is much low er than 1 . t would -. be .. unqer conditions of tu.11 emplbyment . and cap~oity . opera.ti . one of tte p lants. Taking a low . average fo:r;. the _ productivi . ty . Qt the comp . eti ti ve . sys t . em as . 2~0 ~1ga;r s . per day, . 1 t 1s aeen . that .= this sy~. tem .. 1s 23f . per cent .. as p~oducti ve as the Spanish hand meth : od, . aJld 153 per cent as . produ~tive as ' the l1and mold method:. . The mec , hine9/' punched _ , :: h'.ana -t-oll~d :; process 'is us . e~ on+y â€¢'th short.:..r 1i1er c1ga rs, so _ is not compared . with ' t he competlt ive system, w,hich 1s used on . m~d . ium and hl.gh-gra:de long-f11le~ 01 gars . J _ ... .. . Average .. wage r.a , tes for cigarmalcer.s . under the con1peti ti ve ~s _ tem ar~ s omewha t . ditficul t to present, as , these rates . vary between the .: varfou.s planta . Belie.vtng that tt woul:d be . better to show rates : ac ual}Q \ ~ Sl\!d, 1 T.ab1 ' e 11 . ~s been p;repared, listing these . In . this the nor.th~n :i' area a 1 , shown. ,: . . . , .1 ' 1 Tliese rates . are ' iower than the rates _ in e.ff'ect in 'l'empa . Ho~-ever , . the produ c t+v1ty is so JtJUCh , gr~ater that the ?J1B.nufact~era . have a lower . c~s t O~ prodt:lc ~1on , an~ the cigarniakers earn mor~ than . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . , ' . PAGE 39 t . . . . ' ' ' . . . . . . . . ' 1 C,~AR _ MANUFACTURING PROCESSES . . , . . . . . . . . . . 27 with the higher rate and . lower prod~ct iv~t7 _ or the ot~er h11 ' meâ€¢ thods~ 1ll~iatrati~n showing the p~uctio1:1 ot a 10 ce nt cigar .. by each o , r the . ~thoda Wil~ ~ke th is cl ' ear. : . Thi . a ia ~~ntalned in T~ble 1:2â€¢ 1n this table the pe~ worker prodttcti vity and ear:1 2 1ngs under each ntethocS are show.a . : The earnings or the bun ... ~ere and rolle~~ _ ,,a ~ ~ the hal).d mold and liktwise the ~Qmpet1t1Te JDethods are as~ to be . equal. . . . .. Productivity or _ c-i'g11rmakera by ' the Sp~iah hand, an~ band mold ~thoda 1s . baa~d on a 1ow . and a ' ll~gh so . ale c the 1'1rat o~ these on actual . production records of the Ta _ 111l?'a plants; plua an allowance . foJt the Spaniah hand workers in . consideration or the 10 cent . cigU., and tor . the eompe~itive aystem . ~he loweat ~roauotivity _ in plants tiaing t~a _ system in New Jer~ey~ New Yorlc, a~ . Pennay1 . vania . . Fo~ the ~gh productivity s : oale, figures which re,preoont the operat .. ion orthe d1ft . eren~ methods under the moat advan~eoua conditions a:re used. . . . . .. .. Accordi ~ t.o these 1ll~strat1ona; t}:le . lab~r coat .. cigars fo~ a . 10 _ cent size ' is t1s.oo by . the Span~ah h-.nd method, t1T~26 by the hand. mold method (Which rttprese nta an av$rage . between . . the 118~00 for . t~f> Havana _ mold and tis.so for tbe _ shade mold), &Jld $13.'15 by the oompetitiye system. . The use or. the . compet itive system would thus _ result in a labor saving to the manufactu.rera _. of 27.6 per cent _ over the . Span1ah bend metho . d, and 20.3 p . er cent _ o~er the n.., mold method. . ,: . . . . . . ay m111tipl~lng ~he aver~ge cigar~ Foduced.ll:nder th~ 41.tferent syst6me bJ' the wage rate or each, the . tbtal e-l'J11ngs under â€¢ch SJ'Stein are a~owa. _ Under low productivity 09ndit . ~ons, the Span1eh hand 1'0rker would ea:rn weekly wage of$12.35, _ the ll:and ' mold 'irw-ker $14.23, and the worker _ under th~ . competit . iv:e system$17 . 19. By :u~ing the c . pmp~ti ti ~e system, the cig& r1 u"ker11 . 00'114 39 . per . cent mor~ than und~r the Span . 1ah hand math, anc! 80.~ per cent more than 111.der the hand 11\0 ' ld metllod. . . under hi _ gb p~duct,i vity cond i t 10ns, ~he Spanish . hand worker would . earn a . â€¢eekly we.ge . or $16. 63, . the hand mold worker 111.41, anq the worker 1Jsing . . the . compet itive s yatem, ,$24.06. . _ Th1 a shcaa tliat, under the most favorable cQnditi ons, oigar~ maker~ us i~ the co:inpet 1.t 1 v& . syst~m e&r~ 44. 7 per ce.nt more . tban Spanish hand work~ra,. and 24 per cent more than hand mold warkere . T111s . lllue,tration indicate.a tha : t _ the competitive syatâ€¢ ot ciâ€¢ gar manutactl'ing has a labor cost ditferential r~ng1ng ft-GIi 20.3 per cent-27.6 per cent over the _ Spanish lulhd and hand mold It also indicates t~a _ t the cigar,,,ak~a ua ing . tlie o~pet1t1ve system have earninga f?tom 20.a ~r nent-44.7 per cent gr~ater than . under the Spanish hand and ~he . ha:nd . mo ld method.a~ The o~pet1tive eystem is easily adaptable to . the higher grades of . c1g ars, a,n~ ._ the earnings of the. ci _ ga,.1iriake~s on th~ , se exoeed their earp~s on the 11aedi11JJ1 grades. ' Hew ever, as bait been pointed. out be fore~ DlOre . atte~t . 19p ts g1 ven in thee~ . northe~n plan~~ . to the pr.e. paration of. ~he to:t>acco , .. this . being a ~ . ondit1on â€¢ore au ttable . ~or working than 1:11 the Tampa plan:ts .. The high . produ~t.ivity ot oigar makera u,1Jlg the . competitive procees . in . the nort-h:ern ._rea due partly to the ex~ellent condition ot the tqbac~o supplied . tlutm . . wee~)' . â€¢asea ~arl)ed , by cig$rt,1a~"rs using the ~ompe~1 ti ft ,. pro ces _ s in modern .tactor1ee in New Jer-eey; New York and Pennaylva~iâ€¢ r . ange f)iom : 116.00$22.00 . an aver.ge be ing around $18.00â€¢ at ~he pr~s , ent. tima. These piants were restrict~ns their -. out~t to some extent when these figures . were . taken. . . . The ~espeot1 ve co ~ts ot . pertorx,,ing s~yeral pl~t operat~ons other than oig&r,a,ak1ng . b y machine ~d by hand will be given. . . The coat or stripping . by' mach1ne 1a about one-third than the _ cos~ o-r. bal')d-atrippins . In the . 'Pampa plants t-atea o.t l~ oenta per . band on blnd:e ra and 23 , cent.s on -.ppers are paid tor stripping by han~. wt.~ : 3.e the mac}line coat is 13jc : ents . tor both typea ot . leaves. The saving in the stripping o.t -. fi , ller _ by machi . ne 1a . almc;,st as great. Stripping by . hand _ requires 3.3 times ~s much labol' as . by machine, . but the latter met~od 1nvolvea cap~ta~ and . ffl;S.1ntenance . charg , es for the Jbac~~nes. _ As _ has . been mentioned,filler . 1s a.tripped entirely by . hand in the Tan,.pa pl~ts . ~arnings of workerâ€¢ on -.. . \ .. PAGE 40 . . . . .. . 28 . . . .. . . ' . . ' ... . . 1:1 ,. . . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA; FL . OR/DA . . ' . , ' . . , . . . . : . r 1 U , stripping mach 1ne . s ar~ . ~1 ghe~ ~ban those of hand . ~t~ippers. . An . ope . r _ a tor i n one Tampa _ plant earned$12.50 : a tripping by hand~ .. and subs~ quently, $23.0Q by mach:-ie . . . .. . . . The cost . of_ cellophailing by hand in Te mpa is 50 .. cents per . 11 1 while th~ cof f t of banding b1 hand is 60 ce . n~s per M. As 0011rparea. wi t~ this combtped cos : t . of fl.10 for both ope~at 1oris by . band, the rate per M :for cellophaning and bandtng , on one machine is 36 cents per M. The eelloph~ning -: and bending machine~ have a productivity of about 28 . 000 _ cigars per . day .. The workers on thee~ machines ., have a pronu~~ivit7 ~ight t1mes tQ.at . of . the hand : process . 'l'he . oper~tors o-t . tti~se .mac~ne-s . earn from t 17 .oo J 22.00 weekl7. . : : . A machine is ~sed in . some of the l~rger plante for affixing . the internal . revenu,e . s . ta111ps on the .. packed 'boxes . o:f cigars. This . stamping 1,io . chine has ~ ca.paci:ty . of about 32,-000 per day . Workers .. on this machine . ha~e a producti v1 ty . qt fqur . t1 fl~ s that or the . ham . method. . . . . ' . . . . . . , There 1s . a rne ehin~ used 1~ ~~e plants for punching t~ holes \n the ci _ gar he _ a:q.s, punching f? cig~rs at _ a tim~. - â€¢. Where this 1 . s done . by hand it . costs ?O . cent~ per M . . . . .. . . . . : . T.nese Dl8Chines have . ~es ulted _ in c . ons1derable sav,-ngs to tl1e . \ ... . . .. . ' . . . plan:ts . ~ . . . . : ;rn . .s ~me . of the tnoa . t efficient plants in t1=1-e northern area the m : n~ wage paid is$12.-50 per w~ek,r~ceived by the . janito~. Thes e northern plants haye a subs : ta:ntial freight dif:feren~ . tial o:ver th~ ~anipa plants~ mPP~eting mo . s 1 t of their p~oduction ~ri . the nor.thern a.r ~ ea .. .. , . . . . ' ,â€¢ I . . ' . . . ... 12 Processes Used in the Tenipa Cigar . Industry. . . ' . . : In its early : develo p ment, th~ cigar indu . stry of T-&mpa wa~ strictly a Spanish hand indus~ry.. After 1~10 . molds begari to co~e int6 p~ominence in . the . 1nd~stcy . As . these were suc _ cessful and . were an improvement in produ c tivity ovex, _ the Spanish hand __ system; .. their use inc rea~ed ntil now they are used by . all the Tampa com pai+ies . .. Acco~ . ding to the . findings . o f tbla s _ rvey, the mol _ d method .. of ci.garnâ€¢aking _. ~s 159 per .. cent _{3.s prod ~ ctiiie as the . Spanish ha _ nd . procea~ , . in the ']am.pa pl~nts T,his . wou],d seem tc, indicate that . the mold metp.0(1 of making cigars has a promlei~g ._ future in the Tampa i ndustryâ€¢ . . . . â€¢. Mos t of' the Tampa plants have 1 . ikewise adop ted the bunching m,ach!ne for . _ use .. wi . th han d rolling fo:r their . Class A short filler cigars. 'l'l:le machine.;..bll:Ilching, hand'!9ro1+1ng process ;1. _ s 308 per cerit as productive as the Spanish hand method) _ and 193.7 per cen~ a s productive as the . niol~ syst : epi 1 n the Tampa plants. .. It . would . . . \ ' a p pear practical to . use this system on sho:rt . filler cigars ... '.rather . than . t~e -. Span i sh _ han~ or mold met:P.ods. . In . _ re 9ent . ye ars apme . Tamp~ plants hav:e also i nstalled short fi ll~r auto~atic machines for tlieir c11:1ss c ig9:r s . These . have . worked ~ecy satisra ct o~ily. The . coat-adv antag~ with _ these ms. chine s is much gr~at~r . than with any of the other prpcesses . C-om .. pe.rative data from the recQrds of the T ampa . plants s how that the . . product , ivity o . f . t~e . ~hort filler mech1~e is _ 15.~ times as gre~1 : t _ as . tt~ Spa ni . sh narid ., process , . 1 0 .' that of' the mold method, . and s : .2 times as prod u cti . ve : as the machine-bunched, hand-rolled p roeess . 9l'IT'I . . It woul<;l seem advis~p le for .. Te1,1pa e~sar mai:i~fact'U;I'ers to in. vestigate . the po~sibi ' li~y of ' using ~hort filler m e.c;hines for their ciass A production. . .. . . . . .. It . ne ed not b e inferred .. that the Tampa _. indus try m~st go en tirely to~ machine b~sis. Those manufacture~a who _ study . produc, tion cos ts care~lly wi . 11 pro . b~bly use 1:11achiries for their Clas . a ~ ~ige:~s. Contrary . t . o a . general belief i _ n Ta~pa , the ;nineteen hand _ . . . plant~ of that c 1 ty are ~C?t p _ rodu cing the bulk ., of their cigars 1~ . the "A" classification ~t tne presen _ t t1me. . Data fr . om their rev enue . bo9ks ipdicates that . in 1938 th . ey pro<;luced j 43 .a per cent . .

PAGE 41

. . . . . .. . . ' . ' . . , . . . CIGAR JIANUFACTURI](G fROCESSES â€¢, . . . . . Cla . ,s A, 5.7 _ per cent Cia11a . B, 41.1 per cent Class c~ . 9.2 per c.ent of c1ass . D, and .i per cent . Class B. . Over halt. of their proouo. t 1on is stil~ _. in the h~gher grad es. . ;_ .â€¢ . . , . , . Tampa . is a high . grade . shade tobacco center, as we11 aa a c lear Havana cen~er . Ass,1m1ng t _ ~t .. meohines ~~re adopt~d tott Class A ' produ~ti . Qn, . th~ ~duld S t1 . ~l . b , e about half' Of the ou.tl'QI ()f the plants le:ft to . be made b _ y . other . prQ~es _ a~ s . I t do~a not seem like . ly 91' advisable _ that long fi.11 . er â€¢chines . will be bro,~t . into Tan1p~ to make long fille . r . cigars . aboff the . Clas s A grade~ These machines :have been suoce s sf _ l iii' . the north on low p~'9ce cigars~ but they . have not be en part.1cula~ly with th~ -_ ~igher g~ades. In th:~ op1n1 on of certain ~.xpe:rta, the p resent long . filler maoMnes are not auitab1e f.or . the higher gr~des~ Perhaps they .may be perfected s o nie day so ~ s to p:r-od : uce sa:tis .f acto _ rilj. . bu~ now their . product 1~ not equal . to _" the .. ~#).eia grade hand-ma,de cigarsâ€¢ . . . . . . . . Another :factor . to be considered is that Havana do not r end . themselves t~ 11rachin~ production as readily . as the ~01118st1~ wrapper . aâ€¢ lt1or thi~ reas . on th . e . c ~ear Havana cigars 1011 J .. 1 be ditfi. c ult to make on ma~hines. It . is not believep. tha:t the TBllP& indlla . t cy wi11 re.soJ-t to machines f'or . ~ts ~lear Havana productionâ€¢ but . i t is i;hougbt that Tampa will .co~tinue to be primel-ily a q,ality cigar product ion _ center, with most . of its output ' in clear llavana c igars. . . .. . . . _. . . . . . . However, 9ther manufacturing Qent , ers making high grade cig&1â€¢s h ave gQtten . _ ahead : ot Ta1np~ i product1 . on method~ . Ther have not g on~ to 1â€¢Bchines; but have devel9ped . . a pr0.eess : Cit mai:mfa~turing th at is still . ess . entia lly a h$nd process, but is ~ch mc,re product ! ve than th"3 old processes. U:Q.der this . pt-aces~ . , tbey ~81'.l produce a ver:y high grade c ig . ~i-, fu~ly . e q~al _ to Tampa's c 1gars , at 1111 ch less cost than the _. Tampa . manufacturers, pees.use of the hiP,~ . produc t1 vity. . . : . . . . It might solve . t~e _ problem of t . he Tampa industry . as .far. as m echanization is ~qncerned, . if it would a~opt this produetive hend . . system for _ its hi gh er . grade cigars. _ As . no mechanical power is. used w . 1th this method, the Tampa 1ndustcy woul~ ~t . 111 oe prim&rily a . h: and industcy ~ niaki ng . qa . li _ ty ci g e:rs ~ y ~ -. hand process. . At the s ame t;ime it would .. be ab;I.e _ to . compete successtu.lly â€¢~t h ita chief competitors, progresaive no~thern p~~n~a . The : ~ys~em reCer~ed t _ o is the comp~titive system . , w h ich bas. . bee n q.e~cribe . d. I' , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . .. . . . . , . : .. .. . . . 'â€¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢, ' . . 'â€¢ . .. . . . . . . . , .. . ' . â€¢, ,â€¢ . ' . . . .. . . ' ' . , . ' . r . ' . . . . . . . .. ' . . , . . . . . ' . .. ' . ' . .J .. . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . .. I .. I . . ' . . . ' ' PAGE 42 . . . . ,, . . . .. . : . ' . . ' ... .. . . . . Part III . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . ' . ' . . ' . . . . . . . . . GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF TME . CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. . : . ' . . . ' . . . ' ' . . . ' . . ' I ' 1 summary ot the . Prob ieme of the Nati.o _ rra:1 Cigar Industey. t . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . The problems . of t . h~ cigar indu,etry ' o . f the United States will .. be sunnned up briefly 1:q this sub. aect 1on o _ f Part rrr . .. Stat~sti. . cal data illustra~ing th e : movements in the : industry will be giv~~ . . . in the . res . t of the section. . . The ~h~ ' e:r : prob~ein ,:,~ the cigar industry is : the . declining c011I sumption of . cigars tbJ?oughout the country~ . In i9~0 there were .. 8,097,000,000 . cigars consumed . 1r.i tbe Unl[ted S~a tee, whil ~ in 1938 ~his n.wnber h~a, decl1.n$d to 5, 1 53,000,000 _ . This r~pre ~ent s a de.:. cline of ~6 ~ 4 per cent . ~ale s . of . cigars . al_'e . now only 53.a : per cent or those in 19 20 . Such a r eductioh in the m,rk~t dAmend tor . the product of any . industry wouid _ seriously hana;tcap 'it~ . : . Various rea sons . have ~een g iven fo~ t~is decline in _ cigat' : .. . consumpti on . S01ne . ot the ch . ief qnes a _ re related to the increasi~ ... consumption o!' cigarett ~s. Pr.ior , to the World Wa . r . the tempe~ance forces . of ' the nation : ~ampaigned . agains~ th~ u se . of: oigaret~e~ ~s well _. as liquor. Whether . th~ s infl.:uen c~~ smolclra . i s 1_1ot . lmcwn, ~t cigaret:t~ consumpt _ ion . was very low in that period. During _ the . world war ,:;tnd thel;'eaftel", nothin _ g wa s s aid aga inst cigareitei,, in fac t millioJ?.s of .. the~ we re sent over to t~e . boys in the _ trenches~ . . Cigarette smoktng . was . quickly p9pula~ized mnong ,, th . e . men _ 9f the . ;na t ~op., young am _ ol~ alike _ . Not prily did men . universally e111oke oigar~ttes . fol lowing this period _ , but women took up th~ ~abi t ~ Large quantities of cig~rettes . ~e~ . e dem~nded annually b7 women. : It became fa~ionable ; for. both se _ xe a to ~moke together at a11 : ~ociai gatherings. Some women actu~:J,ly objected to men in th~ . group s . mok1ng cigar s, as it ~as more conveni~nt for everyo~e tG . . .. . ' smoke cigarett . ee. Moving . pict:ures featured their stars &11,oking , . ~igarettes. Fashionable gatherings had a predominance of . cigare t t e smoking . . ' . . . . ...,_ The cigare.tt . e compari1e s were no t slo~ to capitalize on t;he situation, and :lnaugu rated . nation al advert!sing campaigns tbat pro duceq prompt . a~q. ~at1sf.actory. re~ults. . The advertising was . pa~tly ; industry-wide . in ~cope, appealing to . persons to SJno~e : cigarettes ~ . without naming individual . brands. Effective appeals for ._ spec1:f1c ci g a1'e ttes . were made in newsp~pe . ra and 111aga zines, by s . ignb _ ~>~rds ai:id other _ outdoo_r media , , and over the radio . Usually the adver' tising was centere , d . a~ound the pictures oJ.' beautiful girls, . f'amous athletes; . 9:nd oelebra tf;'q. _ m~i:nbers of a ocie ty. . It wa _ a very. eff_'ect~ v~ 1 resulting in , sales 1.ncr~ases. .. ' . . Concerted adv . ert1a1 ng by diffe . rent companies in an industry has been much e . as~er 1-n the , case qf the e . igarette industry _ the . c . igar industry ., a~ the leading companie . s i n the former are very much l~rger than 1n the latter; with plenty of means fo~ sustai~ed advertising, . . . . .. . .. The .. cigar i nd~st ry _ has . been . negligent . in adve~tising, which . . has . reac ted str9nglyagainst it~ . H o . con~er~ed effort has ev~r be~n made to induce people to em~ke c~gars. I~ivtdual ad~e~t1sing ey the companies ~as ,be~n limited . and no ~ very efre c t~ ve. The sales m~thods of man . y _ of the c ;tgar companies in ~he ~ndustry are lik~~ wise i n n.e~d ~f improvement~ The merch~ndising of cigar : s . is dQne . .. carelessly., some deale . rs and merchants not keeping . cigars in go condition b~t letting them q.cy out;. . . . . Unetpl cal advertising . by one cigar . compatiy hurt the irxlustry. This was the famous .'~ anti..: . spi . t'' campaign, in which one manufacturer advertised. tha:t , _ his ci g ars were . ~achine~made, arid th erefore not . made by puttin g . ~p1 t on the head of t;he _cigar.. . . . The fas ter mQde of 11 ving af . fected cigar consumption, in that . . persons learned to prefer qu1 ,: ck _ smokes., ~ch as were given "by clg~r ettea, t o the more l~isu~~ly cigar smoking . Arter th~ World War .. .. . . . . 30 ' . . . . . .

PAGE 43

.. . ,. . . G ROWTH AND PROBLEMS OF THE CJGAil. INDUSTRY IN .THE U ; S. .. ,. . . . ' . . . . . . 31 a restless spirit pervaded the nation . , and people were out and , doing thiugs, . ra th er than e1tt1ng q1.,1etly at hane. The autol!lobile symboli _ zed tp ia era . C . igar s,no~ng i . s not v&J:J conveni~nt when getting in a~ : out of cars, and making at9pe h~re and therâ€¢~ A cigaret t~ th~t _ could . be 1,-ghted and thrown away in a r~w minutes was ~onsider~d more .. practt cal . _ Then, p _ eople hav~ . becqme diCI e ne rvous than ro rmerly~ and believe ci garettes qui~t th . eir nerves. l Many s~oker~ ~ave preferred cigarettes because they are more economical than . cigars. All . cigars appe~r expel:}si ve in c~pa1eon with cigarettes, especially those above the . 5 cent _ pr1ce range. Not -only _has . total c 1 . ga r con aumption deQ . line~, but the tre~ h as be : en towar~ the smoking of cheaper ci g ars. . ' Iri 1920, 84 per . cent of all . ci g ar . a . consumed . ih the United Sta . tea were Clasâ€¢ A, or . those selling for 5 cent~ and le as. . I~ l , 938 4 88. 8 . per c~nt of ~11 . . c igar~ consumed . were Class A-, â€¢. This trend towar.d the. . low price ci g ars has wprked a _ great hardshi . p on e ompan1es making pr1nci' " . p ally quality . ci g a rs. .: . . ,. . . The . trend toward m echaniz , ation ' in th e cigar industry bas _ raia. I . . ' . ' ' ' : ed proble)'.lls of . unemployment _ , as the machines dis . placed worbrs. . .. Th is -. baa . been particu.l:,~;rly "ever . e ~hen hand plants ~ere cfl,letely m e chani zed. : . . . . . . . . . . . , Labor troub les have . persisted in the . ~ igar imuetry, ' ohlef'ly . . i n the unioni'zed hand . p lants. The qi.~putea have . usually centered arqunq wage rate~. Ther~ _have qee~ some serious labor situationa . in the ! _ cigar industry iJ?. New York Ci : ty and ~aippa and Key Weat, Florida, . at differe~t times. . . . . Other _ propleme exist in the national cigar industry,â€¢â€¢ w~ll . b e seen fr<:n an inspection of . the . statistical data presented. in this section . . .. .. . ' ' . , 2 _ .-:. De velopment of t~e Clga . r _ Industn 1n: the United _ States. . ' . ' Small Scal , e Shops.: . ' . . ' ' Dur ing the period 1800 to 1860 ;tittle factual data ia av~ll able conce _ rning the . pro . du ctio~ and consumptioh of : cig a rs. The only usetv.l index !s foupd in th _ e imports of ci g ars . and leaf _ tobacco. Up to 1860 111ost ' o , f .. the impol'ts . of tob . a . cco . leaf and of better cl. g al's can;t'l . ~OID Cuba; . while incr . easing qi1anti 1ties of cheaper . cigars _ were lm~ . orted froni Oe;X'many and Bel:gium. A~ter â€¢~ the c1vi _ l Wu., tariff 4ut1e . s on imports . of cigars r . ose faster than _ those on leaf t ,. bac~oL ope~1ng the _. way for the gro1"th o : f a. domes t .. 1c c~a~ 1nqustry. '.L'he earliest connne . rcial supply of ~om _ e ma~uf~ ctured cigars . came fron;i smal ' 1 owner.;,oper9:t _ ed . craft shops . The . only requirements for stablis~1ng a cra ft shop â€¢~re a . few inexpens1 ve tool a ca,, b ined _ with . skill acquired th ' rough -. several yeers' apprenticeahi , p. : Cigar produ _ cts wer~ usually sold tn a . l.ocal market, . perbape . in _ . _ front of' the shop~ In tlie earlle st period : of th~ American c igar indus ~ry: , t~e small . craft s~op was th~ predominant : source or pro~ duct ion . . : . In : the : latter part or th~ last century retai : l tobacco a tores f or t~e sale oJ.' c iga:ra, m,,okin g tobacco~ chewing tobacco, . anuff, etc., were ..,,-~ely ' di&tributed throughout . the country. They were usually d~sigrui ted by the f.~ _ gure of ~n ~ndian, placed in flâ€¢ont . o r the store. The . a~ ci g ar-st o-re Indiana . l~at . ed ufltil the World War period:, when they were placed .. ~ in museums.as fond rel lcs ot an era ,rhich had . passed. . . . ' " The merchandis _ ing or ci g ars in the United . States has been tak~n . over .lar g ~ly by i,tor~s , ot h ~r th~n oip;ar storea . Wbereas a large . :p art or . t . he . t . otal c _ ig~r sal es 1'ere fc,1-iue~;I.y ma . de by . ci g ar stores, this portion ia noâ€¢ very small. . In 1~29 there . were ~3 , 248 cigar stores .. in the yn1teq. : States, . while in 1 935 this m1mbe~ }i ad declined . ~o 15,3p0. In _ 1g29 ." cigar stores _ made ~alte} of 1410, ~5, while in 1~;55 these . __ sales . had qropped to tJ.82, 950 . t . ~ 'â€¢ l . Census ot Business; Retail . :bistrib-tion; States Cena~a ;Bureau, Washington. . . . Volume IV, 19~5, United . ' .. . .. ' \ . . '

PAGE 44

.. . . . . ' . ' ' . . . . ' . . . 32 I . . . THE CIG~R fNDU$TRY . OF TAMPA, FLORIDA Mechanical . . . , . . . ' Improvetnent a i n th~ Hanq. Proeese. I . . . . . . The introduction in ,. t~e ciga~ industry of the inold . in 1869 . : 111ade profi table the use . of t~arâ€¢â€¢work sine~ . 1 t e n11ance d . t:P,e output per .'. wQrker. owiier~ of the . larger ~ops so:ugh t t-o intr . oduc~ the . ~eaniwqrk . sys~ . eai . As has been explained~ ;this method corieia,ted qf . ~hree e1.ga.I'l11a~ers working together as a rt~mn o;ne tnsk~ng the '. ~'1-llches and sha : ping th~ with molds, and the others pu . t~ing on _ th~ . wrappers. . . . . . . . . t . . _ . . .. Since the . use or molds was cpns~de::rea an infrine;emei:it on the sktll of he.nd : cig&.i-nwkers~ strike . a of UJ?.ion i zed c~ _ gariuekers ~e~e . . , . precipi ~ated in certain shops _. where . th1~ 1 . 1ntroduc~1on was ~t . te~p~. : ed. Samel . Gompers, then a you ~ thf'u.1 cigarn1~ker in a : New York _ shop, part ic ipa ted in one ot these mold strike . 8 when he joined the workera : of his shop ~n pro . ta . st. Ju et prior . to 1j1s dea:th, oompers ad. . dressed the . 1923 cq.riven _ tion of _ the Interna . tional c ~gar.triskers' Union . .. at Ch i cago. In the ~~~ech . which was . ~ntltled "Ace~ . pt . ~e Machine, . Organize the Workers, .. be . recalled his early experience : in ~e niolc;l strike .and ma . de the . .following ob servation: .. . . . . . . " .. I a111 b'ee to riay the. t .f'rom that time th ' ere came some . light tci .. . . . . rey : ~in~# . and I realizeq. for the first time that it was absolutely fut11~ f_~'I! workmen _ to prote~t against or to __ go on str. ike aga1net . the . ln:..troduot~on .of machine, a new device or new tool.â€¢ ( 1 J . _. . . ' . . ' . .. ' Another mechani cal aid which encoraged the spref}.d . of . teamwqrk â€¢as the suction w.i'.'apping device 1Iitz,a oduced in 1883. This device is _ now generaliy . identified a~ the ~uc t1 . on tab+eâ€¢ . _ Ne.ithe~ or these technical innovations c ompeted with the ,band. 1cre.'ft _ process as ma ~ chinery iater did. . Both enhanced the output pe r worker and . thereby strengthened the' hand s ystem. Int;r09-u.otion . of . these improv~ments was checked but tjot prevented by the opposi. tipn of cigttzâ€¢rtJBlcers who . sought to protect their tra1ning i n apprenticeship and acquired skill. ' ' . Cigar Machinery . ' Since 19 . 00 cbeap cigars _ have . been msde t _ o _ a larg~ extent by . short filler bun _ chirig machines. As ha~ b e.en e~plained in . Part I:I th is machine malces the bunches, which then have the ,n-appere . put on by h1,1nd . roller . a. . If a ;ro111ng unit is add~ . d to _ the .... b1Jnchi~g maehi~, the short filler cigar c an be made conipl _ etely by . automat 1 c machinery requiring only . two . op~r9.:~ors. . . . , The po,rer buncll ing machine wa:s int~ . oduced :i:p 1886 by ~orgfeldt of Metuchen, New . Jersey. In 1902 improved bun " ching ma . chi n ~ was 1ntro~u~ed . by . Universal Ma . chin ry Company of New _ ark, . ' N ~ w ~ersey. In 1912 a rolling un1: t ~as ad(ied t~ the . bunching m~ chine by ~e , Cig~r Machine Company of _ Ba1tiore, Maryland. . . At present two rna jor types of short fill er cigar machines . ~re on the inarket, manufactured b; the . . Af.-enco Ma ' chine Company azj.d . . , : .. the I~ter1atic;>nal Ci ga~ . Mac~1ne . Co~pany. 'l'he f'9rmer conce:ri:1 re cently sold its patent righ~s . for a new model bunching and ~olling uni~ to . the Int . ernational Cigar .. Machi n:e Company, . 1:?ut continues to sell bunch _ ing machines . . The Araneo Oompany 1~ a subsidiary of a . Swedish manut'acturing c _ omp any Ql).d . import, all of its products from Swed~~ . The Interna ~tonal Company is a aubis1 . dia :' ry of the American Ma . chine a . nd Fqundry Companyestablished oy the American Cigar 0 . ompa ny in 19 00. . . . . 1 . . . <. Exper1nient _ a.t1on over . a long per~od at . a cost . of 7 , o . oo, ooo dollars . was ne c ese ary for the _ introduction in 19+ 7 of a long fill er c :, igar machine. The ~eri oan M9:chine S.t;)d . Fo~ry .Company . and . _ the International Cigar Machine CompQ.ny intrpduced this :four-opera . tor ma~hin~ which . o~fered th~ first . serious competition to hand workers . ma~ing . 1o ng f ille~ c ~g a . rs. . . _ .. _ . . -------. ' ' . ' l. _ Cigarmaker's O~ficial Journal~ Oetoqer . lp, 192~ . . . . I PAGE 45 . . . ' . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . , G . ao wra AND PR . OBLEMs oF IHE CIGAR lND ' USTRY IN THE U. s . . . . . . ' . . . . ,. .. . . . . A : descript ion of the operation : of the . se ma~hines has been g ive~ in Part II of this Report . . . . _ . Taqle 13 . ~ows the distribution of short ftller . and long filler machines in . the principal cigar pr(X1uc1ng states. This . tab~e e~pbaaiâ€¢ea the ~mall use of long ~iller machines in Plorida as . compe.~ed. . with ' north&J:'11 cigar . states . Pe,;invlvania am llew Jersey , hav, mor~ than . 2000 long fi~le . r nmchinea in operâ€¢t1on . as compared with six 1 n Plor1da. Bach . ot these tour-operatorâ€¢ cl 1 ines is câ€¢pabie ot . making ov~r 40~0 cigars . per eight-:-hour da7 The su~c~~atul development of c~gar machin_ery has mean, that ea ch . manufacturer of _ cigars by machinery .. might have to 1nveat . ~ lar g e priginal sum in equ1pnent which ~as foiil1erly : Al . th ou gh cost oi' production 1~ raised .. in the . ag ~ re.gate . it ia 1-owered pe r u}?.it . of product provided the ma~ines . can b~ Jcept busy. . . , 1 Adjustment to Wages and . Hours Legisla , tion . ' < z .. . . Table . 14 . shows ave rage . . houriy : . ~etur.x~s in plants manufacturing cig ars, ... ,for cigar hand : wo . r~er . s a . s compared . with machine : o perators. . Tlle . m~DiJD'.WD wage rate required . for . labor . on products aold in interstate c01â€¢Phetrce is set at . 25 cents per hour w ith an increase . to 3-0 cents scheduied for Octoberâ€¢ 1939 . . The Fair Labor Ac t of 1938, conmionly . known . a~ . th~ Wages and Hours Law. calla for con tinuatior1 . of the 30 cent rate : for. the pe~iod from 1939 to ._ 1945, a fte r . which : tl,le ' miniimm, rate per hour ris~s to 40 . cents. Aa hand workers in some of the ,= plants are barely . earning the mininmll wage a . t the time Qf . the ~aking or this Bll.rVey, tt is essential , that th& . pl ants _ speed . up their labor prQduct1vity, presumably with . iaachine . s. The effect of the . Wages ~d Hours Law is toward ' mechanization and fe wer but larger factories. This law has already_ caused the clos1 ng o f a number of s,nall machine Qi gar. pl . ants in Pe~sylvanla. manu fac turing . 2 for 5 cen . t cigars wi _ th . low wage scale~. . . . . . . The Consolidation Movement Prior to 1917. . ' . . '; . . Whil~ the ha _ nd prqcess rema i ned the chief method o f producing c igari,. t~e most e . fficieilt siz~ of ci gar factor~es was nomal _ ly . the small. to medi,un type. . From 1~90 to 1900, the :fqnerican Tobacco Company wa~ en out-: stanq.1ng e . xample o f . a . large company i n this fiel dâ€¢ exhibi tiaag a ph enomenal g'ro1'th in thts per1 00. . ~t .. _ was s . uccesstul in attainiq; . subs . tantial c.o~tr~1 : of ~obac;co product s in ,ever.y brane.h or 1aanufa ct uring except. the product~on of lar . ge ~1 ,g ars . . . In 1901 the American Tobaccq Company 4~vaded . the large cigar I in dustry, eff'ect~rtg a seri __ es of consol1 dat1ons witl;l the object of co ntrol : Its subsidiary . . , : , the American . cigar Company, incorpor~ted i n Ja.n~ary, 1~01, i~creased 1 t s control . over 1 . arge ~igar production fr om per ce~t 1n 1901 . to 16.4 per cent . in 1903. Fra,1 that time unt il dissolution of the trust in 1911, the control over : the large c igar industry never exceeded 15 .' per cent . It 1a c 1ear that the at t empt of t}:le tru~ . t to . co~tro . l t})e cigar 1nd.u s try was . not nry suc c essful. A . cc . ord1ng to ene a'1thorlty, thl~ attempt failed becau se "~o~opolt pr1nc1p . le s aJJ.i) oo . ~di ti ons d i d not prevail,!' at .. the t t lme in the cl . gar industry.\ Later, a~ . conditions chaI\ g ed, the oppor . tun~ ty . for . 18.J;'gescale ccintr ~1 develope4. . . . . Consol id.a t1on After . 1917 : . . . . . . . ot . _ A~ter th . e cigar ma~hin~ . ~as introduce~ for the iâ€¢~nufâ€¢ct1&1 e large, long filler ci g ars . there was a : niovement to'.Wa _ rds tne naore rapid use of J.arge~s ca . le methods. . The &conoinies involve? would p ermit and encourage consolidation, be . in g very f'avorable to la rgescale operat1 . o ns. . . . _. . . ' . . .â€¢. . ' . . . . 1. Economic D~velo ment of. the Ci 1933. .. _,.. Pr n . ng on,pany~ . Lancas ,.. . ar Indust , . . Baer~ . er, a. ' . I .. . . ' . . t . . . . . PAGE 46 ' . . I I I 11 11 1,1 . I . . I ' . ' : . . ' , . . . . ' .. , . 34 . . . . ' . . .. TH~ qIGAR . IND . USTR . Y OF TAMPA, FLORIDA. . . . . . . ' . . . Table 1 . 5 : z,hows that s~nce 19 . 17 the n:umber of firm&; eng~ged in . cigar man~.facturing _ has de clined by nearly . two-thirds. WheJ-e~ . as 13 , 528 ci gar manuf~cture _ rs were operating when the long f.!lle . r cigar . machines were _ introd~ced . iri 191 '7 , : . the number of' m~nufacturers ~n 1938 had . decli~ed ~o . 4~151. Part of f ~is _ reduct1on was . due to tailures . b~t there ar~ ma):'ly instanc~ s oft . oonaoli~at~ons of t:ir,,,s. In some cases co~aol . idat1ons re ' sulted from the obvious advantages of large-scale operations, . ~bile in others they : occurred _ because . of' . .financial . atr _ e.ss arising rrom poor. management, . a de clining mar_ : ke : t and othe~ tactprs. . . ._ The _ ye _ ars .. ~ince l921 haye ~i tnessea; a mar~ed tre11d f.'rom pro duct ion in many . sma 11 and .' med11.1m s 1ze f~cto~ies, organi zed by relati vely siti~ll manager:t ' al departme _ nte, to l~rger ~it _ s. . ' . . . ' . \ ' Ta~ le 16 SLOWS this . trend, present~ng data at _ in:t"r-va}s of several yea~s. _ It is . s igni:f~cant .. that 60 per . cent of pro duction . in 1937 ca _ me f'ro~ :fact;ories . producing . OVi~~ 40 1 000,000 annually-. . Thie compares with 15.7 per . cent _ o.f the total output fro111 th~~ sarâ€¢~e cl~s~ in 1921 . . . While a continu . ~us growth took place . in the faetor~es produeing ~n ex~es~ of , 40;000,000 annually durtng the period _ l921-193'7 , a c . onsistent . reduction occurred in those nmk . ing less th~n 40,000, 000 a~ual ly. Obviouslr very _large _ ~stabl~~men . ts were gaining at the expense of _ the small concerns. Al though 9 c~pan1e~ control most of : t he output :ro . r ea~ group o:f tc;,bacco . products .except 1~!9 . ge c . igars, 11 ttle ~e s.dway ha _ s ~een made . ip ~ontro111ng cigar output. . The f'irina producirig J]lost ot: the vo liime of cigars are those . spec~ alizing in _ ci g a~ _ s al _ o n~~ Poss~blf ~he _ potentialities _ i _ n the ma.nuf.'act;ure of cig~s by mach ine a~d semi-machine methods are . not being realized l;>ecaus . e s . ome firms wish to . push the sale of cigarettes . . . . . . International 0 1garmake . rs' trn+on . I . . . . . \ , . . . The development and . present status of the International c1garmskers' Union will be . treated . br iefly . . \_ The beginning c;if' thi _ s organizati~n 1'-a s in 1861 in N~â€¢ Yor~ City. Like many other American craft unions its . administrative . set-up was chara .' cterized by dec _ ent . ralization. As . soon a~ 1 ts : or~ ganization had : gro~.(l suff~c~entiy, it s et up high _ standards o:rmember$1p and . a system o.f . bane.fl ts b~seti . on high dues . The union' a . policy iri . the . period o . f :1:ts growth may ~ . e ewmttarized as . follows: . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . (a) Establishme . nt . _ of _ a ur1ifot-1n . ru l . e whi~h s et three yea.r a' : appr~n t1 . ce:9hip _ as . prelim _ :1,nary to . m~m?ership ~1 igibili ty . (b) A un~f.'orm . tp-inimum wage of' $7. 00 i per th9usand. (c) A prqgrcani for _ an eight-hour wor~ing day~ . (d) . ijequirem~nt that . union labels be used for all proc;lucts . selling ab o ye . t20 . per thousand. . . . . ( e) : Ref'u sal to permit member . a . to w ork in non_ 11nion shops. r . . . .. . . . '. . A step which ~ . -t;;rengthened the Cigarmak~rs' Union .. wa~ the in . stalla . tion of '. a eys . tem of de~th, sicknes s, u.ne,aployment' and . . .. . traveling (loan) ben _ efits . This vir~u~lly. added a pl~n of insur anc _ e protection ,hich _ was derived from the .. peri9di c . dues just as strike beneti ts . . . . . . I r , . In rece _ I?,t ye,;trs the policy of the In:ternational Ciga.rmakers ! . ,. Union bas become 1ess extensive . ~n its . ~cope. Union laoels _ ha ve . pas~ed ~nto disus e wb.11~ t}:le ~1ght'."9haur working _ day h as be . en in, . e~rpo~ _ ted the . general st . andard . throughout American _ industry. Of the torm:er. : broad . system of benefit~ only strike benefits rAmstn f.'rom the reduced dues. . An apprenticeship rule is of s~li . imp()r.. tance when . pr ~ ct ~ce.liy no young n:ien . are , ~nteres~ ed in _ bec _ ~~ing hand : c1ga.rmak,rs. Mini~ wages furnishing add ed protect . ion to . the worker have bec 4 on1e 9: leg~slated f'act in _ ~he Wages and Ho~s Law. , : , During _ t.h , e past . se:veral decades the . Cigaitrnaker s' Union has raced_ . declin~:11g . m~~bership. There ~as a groY1th in _ union ~embersp.ip .. . . . . ' . . . PAGE 47 I I ' . .. . . . . . I GROWTH AND PROB . LEMS OF THE CIGAR . IND . USTRY IN THE U.S. . . . . . . . . ' . 35 to . 1910. ._ A fter :this peak year, members were gradu ally reduced as the t~e,nwork sy.~t e ~ was more widely ad-0pted and the spread of ms chine-ry began .Its membership has . decli~ed from ~5,699 in 1920 to about 13 , . 000 in 193-9. . , Part . of this . decline may be charged to the . reduction in demand for high grade, hand-made cigars. Bpw~ver,. mu~h of . the blame rests on the opposi ti on of union workers to th~ . int~oduction of machinery and mechani _ cal . a~ds and the slow,ne~s of admitting machine workers. Such leaders as George w . . Pe : rkins and Samuel Gompers saw: the need for org~n1 z1ng , all cigarmakers 1r the organiza . tion was to remain effectire. Both r~alized t~t t;tie 9rge:nizat10~ of workera must ke~p step with the evo~utionary progre~s _ towa~s cent~l~sation and specialization. Both pointed out in spef)~es during the early 1920 1 s that the cigar industry was gr~dually evolving .from men hand workers ~d _mOld workers to inc~eased employment of women on bunch mald.ng end au~o~ tic machineryâ€¢ .. Thei . r reques t for ~e . or-<' ganizS:tion and admission of .. these machine __ wqrkers went . unheeded. At p _ r~ sent, the memb ership is la rgely concentrated in th~ ham plants of ._ Fl~ida _. with the . threat of continued dec1 1ne still 1111111nent. . . . ' 3 Production and .. Consumption .. of Cigars in the United States . . The r~mainder of thia section will ~onsist largely o an analysis of eta tistical tables showing . tre nda and eondi ti one in the natiom,.l cigar . indu~tfy. A close inspection of these tables should re~ul~ in the 11nd,:,rstanding of s~me of . the major p~brems of th~ industry. In this . sub-sectio . n figures pe rta~n . ing to cigar . _ p~oduction an;i cons11 . mpti~~ . trend.a wil _ l 9e presented. ' Table 17 shows . the production of cigars in the United Stat es !~ro:rn ' 1863-1958, by la rge and small classe~. The c lass of arr,all cigar~ . is not very fm porta:nt, and ls seldom referred . t _ o in statistical comparisons. ._ : . . . It can . l;>e seen rrom this table that the cigar industry . in the United States has been a declining indus . try sine~ 1920 . , aa f . ar a . a t he total output . and consumption o , f ciga.rs is co _ ncerned. Tne cigar indus~ry was prosperos for ~ifty years prio~ to 1920~ ~twas a thriving industry . during the 1a t t _ er part of . the . last century, in 1870 producing over 1,000,000,000 cigars; in 18 _ 80 ove~ 2,000,000,000, in 189 . 0 . over . 4,000,0QO,OOO,and in 1900 ove r. 5,000,000,000. The productio~ in . 19.00 was greater than . it is at the present " time. In 1910 there were produced about -r, ,000,000, ooo cigars, 1Jhile the peak of production -was reached in 1920, ; w 4 th a total production of 8 . ,000.000,oqo cigars. Durin g . tp.~ 1920'~ thE;' cigar outpu:t held up . _ fairly well, although it was somewhat less than at the . beginning. o f th~ decade. . I n the depres . sion production dropped to a low fig ure in 1 , 9 . 33, with 4,300,000,000 froni. which point i . t climbed to 5 ,153, ooo, ooo in 1958. , Table a 1 . 8 ~nd . 19 show . the trend of c 1gar . cons11mpt1o n in the Uni ted States by revenu~ classes . from : 192919 . 38. These have been expla~ne<;l as . being based on pric~ ranges. . The significant changes in the . tiPe of cigar _ s produced can be seen . from ._ thesE> . ~able _ a. The cigar iridus try of the United States has sh ifted to a ;I.ow price prod uct. _ In_ 1~20 only 24 p~r cent of the _ total ; production consisted of Cla~e A cig a r s, ,rh:ile in . 19 ' 38, Cla~s A cigars made ' up 88.8 per cent : of the total. Class B . : ci g ars _ ; which accounte . d for almost one. third of the total productlon in 1920, now ha~e ~ a negligible pro duction. _. A very -. serious declln~ has ta.ken place ~n m.ed1 . um pr1 . ce cigar~, or : C lass C, whi ch made up 42.8 per cent of ttie total in 1920 and only 9. 4 : per cent 1 n 1938. The 1 two higher classes have never repr~serited mo~e than a very small part of the na tl 0 nal total, but . these show declines . , ~at of Glass . E being particular sharp. These table$ constitue a vivid illustratio11 of the shi t of . the . Ain~~ i . ca n . cig~r .' indu~try to a low~r-pric ed product. . . In Table 20 the . s _ easonali ty of , c igar output can ~e seen. The .,_. months or : high _ production are October, November, September, and . . . '

PAGE 48

I ' ' ' ' ' ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . .. . . . ' . . 36 . . . . , . ~ . THE CIGAR 1'1DUSTRY OF TAJIPA ~ FLORIDA Augst , while the slack produc~ion months . are December, . January, 9:nd Februacy . This seasonality qt: production has vari ed . somewhat . duri~ this period, tending .. ~o be more concentrated in the buq :. months. The peak of . cigar . sal es i s in the middle and late t:al lâ€¢ 1 in anti cipa. tion of the Qrisk Chri~ t,,,e a mark~~. The lack of: 2:1 torage equipment i n . moe t pl.~rits he~ps ac~ ount for . the i)rono'1Jlced seasonal . va ri~ tions., as ciga rs must be ~ep~ under . h~idi.f ' ied conditions to me1n tain their quali ' ty:. .. Instab13: 1 ty of: ~eaeonal pro~uc tion c~uld be remedied to acme extent by the installation o~ ~umido~ storage . . facili:ties, but ~e high .cost ot: this is a deterrent tn many plants~ The Tampa: ~igar . pl~nts do not h~v~ this prc;,blem, .' as . the to,ipera~e and hum1.dity a . re suitable for . cigar production and storage withput art . it! oial condi tion . i:ng~ . . . . . . . Tables 21 . , 22~ and 23 st1ow the dlstr ibution of the national . . cigar prod:ucti on . and 1 ts . ch _ anging . trends in the 1 eading producing states . The first . of . these tables gi~es the number of cigar manu .fa . cturlng coinpani.es by st ates, . the next the production of the eight ' lead . ing c igar manufactur:1.i:ig states, e od the . t..."1.ird the percentage of total production . of each . ~t~te. The first of these t ables .. shows . the redu . ctlon in the n11n;ioer Qf cigar m~u.facturing f'lrms , .. and the size o.f these, whi . ch ha~e . l;> een c01,noented on. Fr.om this tab le the ~p.anges in the number of companies in individual states c~n be obs e rv e . d .. . . It i s se . en .fr9in . / the . ea ta'Qles that New York has the 1arges . t _ number o f . : eompanies~ 1,01 0, but : Pennsylv~nia _ produces the greatest numb er of' cigars, 37.4 per cent ,. ot the t9tal. Florida has l.97 . co~paniee, . but . produces 16 per cent of the total , produ~tion. I~ 1920 Florida produced but 4 _ . _ 4 per ce nt ot: the national total. The . produ~tion ot: ~he large . ma . chine plants of th . e Swisher and Hav~ _. tempa Companies have been l~rgely ' re sponsi b . le for this incre . ase Of the other . . states , Pennsylvania ha~ been . the leading pro ducer si~ce . the beginning of the industry, accounting . for 29 , .3 per cent off the . total pr _ oductiQ~ in 192~ Most of the l~rgest ma<;b,ine plants in the indils try .. are 1 oca ted . in P~ilade _ lphia, such ~s the ~ayuk, Congress; Consolidated, arid General Cigar Companies . Sub stantial increases were mad~ in th+s per . iod by New Jerf;Jey am South C~roli~~ ~ N~w Jersey has mos~ly hand plants, with some of them, _ l ike the Ameri~an Cig~r C , ompany~s pl:ants ~t Trenton, making very . hi . ~ quality cig~s. A machine pla~t constn;cted a t:ew years ago in _ Cherles~on, Sout~ Carolina, accounts for the ,increas e in .. the total Of: thi s state. . _ Th:e heavi . est declin e in cigar p~oduc _ tioJ?. . toQlt place in New . _ Y9rk, . whose prQp . ortion o f total production dropped from 14 per cent to 4.5 p~r cent .. Troubles w1th Qrganiz~d iabQr 1n New York h~ve res:ul t _ ed in the removal of' ni~ny . plants . to . New Jersey, P e . nn sylvania ani Florida. Other states showing a decline in total .. . production include On1 . o, : virginia, Michigan, and Indiana. . In 1920, the l~di ng cig~r produc : il:lg states . were Pennsyl', yani~ , New York, _ New Jersey , . Ohio, .. Virginia, Mi~higan , ~d Flor. 1 d.a In . 1937, 65 : per cent of the total . national . production w~s ' in Pennsylvania, . Florida and New Jere~y. This indica tes a con:centr~ tion o _ f . cigar . pr . oducti on in certai _ n regions of the . united . States ;. : Th~se tables likewise sbow _ ~he . production ot small c.i . gars by s tates . In Virginia .-. the production of s,11all cigars has increased from ~7,129,000 in . 1~20 to 156,195,000 .. in 193'7, . this . s tate b elng , ~e lee:ding producer. . Florida hae shown an i~crease in _ . recent years to 16,080,000. The p~od.uction or small cigars has declined . " . greatly in other s _ tate~, tn ~ew Jersey ~6ppi~g frcn11 eo . ,s o . 1, _. 000 . in . 1920 to 4, 799 . , . ooo in 1937, and in New York declining ;fra11 60,387, ooo to 4;448,000 in this period. A smaller q~antity is produced in _ South Carolina:, Ohio, and Pennsyivan~a. . . . ~able . 24 lists the a verage : ~~t : ail pric~ . for ciga~s sc;>ld in . the . United States each year from 1920-1938. This proves conclusively that c igar co n . sumpt ion in the U:ni t ed Sta t es h~a shifted to cheaper cigars. A~cording to . the~e . figures the ~verage r . eta!l price of: cigars in 1920 was . 1 . 1 c~nts, compared . wi _ th 4.6 cents in 1~38. This . . . . . I .. \ ,

PAGE 49

. . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . GROWTH AND PROBLEMS OP THE CIGAR INDUSTRY IN THE U . S . . . . . 4 . . . ' . 37 is a . reduction in average sales reducti on has been a . great -, blcw price or 68 .2 per . cent. Thia price to the hand plants making ~lity cigars. _.. . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . 4 _ : Forei~ Trade and Constnnptlon .. of T-obacco Pro . ducts. , . . rmp orts . ot . c 1gars into the Uni . tad sta~es, inciuding sh1pments f rom non-oqntiguous t&zâ€¢r1toi-1es, have 1n recent years . consisted ch iefly _ or large shipments or very: cheap cigars from the Pb111p p in~s~ -. It is report~d that these cheap cigars are banded with an es tablished American brand, end e _ old . as American cigars ~1or to . th e W(?rld Y.lar P . ~riod imports of high-grade eiga~s fra,, CUb~ were . im portant. These cont~nued to be . imported in fairly ~ large quanti ti e . ~ during _ th . e 1 920 1 s, . but in . recent y~a rs _ h ~ve dwindl~d ~o a ve ry srna 11 total-. . Puerto Rico has shipped a qu~n-ti ty ot . c~rs to th is country for . a long pe;r1od. but . 1~ the last few years these sh ipments have declined sharply~ Imports of cigars . other couii trie~ . aiâ€¢e negligible. Very rew cig~rettes are imported into th~ United . States. Figures showing : eig~r imports and shlpma, ts in to the united States are contained in Table 25. Th~re are .. ver-r . few c~gard exporte~ rrom tb.e United St ates, bu t sub~ tantial sh1.pme~ts of cigare _ ttes.. The export totals ere . sh ywn in 'l'abie 26. I~ might be ite1'est 1ng to F.lor1d1ans to kno~ tha t one or . the large machine ci gar canpaniea in the eta te . , . the ,. . S wisher Ca,rpa~ ~ is develop ing a s~bstantial trade 1n . toreip ma rket~ Thero might ~e a good op_p~tunity for the . cigar 11Jd,1etry . to recoup s~â€¢â€¢e or its losses by inc~eased f~re1~ business. Ci gar manufacturers desirou a . or develop . ing a foreign rnerket fo r their produc~ might be intere~ted in Tables . 27 : and 28~ . '!he fi rst or these shows the estimated animal cops,unpt~on _ of . cigar . a ~ nd cigare _ ttes . 1n twent.7 European countJ9 1 es fr~~ 1920-1935. It is seen that the c ons,mption df both cigars and cigal.'ettes has in creased ~ppreciably in this : periodâ€¢ . cl.gars by' 21.5 . per cent, . an d c iga~e tte,-, py 70~ . 1 per c ent. Th~s : wou.19 seem j to be . ap â€¢~ .. co uraging indication or possible markets . tor ~igars. . The se _ cond . 9t . t~ea . e ~ables shows the per capita consumption of cigars a~ .. cigarettes in each of eighte en European couritrlea, com pared with . ~at ~n ~ e United States. It is seen that tbil Net herJ : anda~ Denmark. and . Gerinany hav:e . the highest per . capita cig ar c ons,unption, each of these . exceeding the united States. The Un ited Kingdom 1s the . great~st cigare tt;e-:amok ~ ng nation in Jll i !v_pe . . . . . . ' . . . 5 Comparisop of the Cigar Industry With the Cigarett~ , . . . . . . . I' ' Induatry-.. . . . . . It baa be.en s tated that the chiet source of . canpet1t~on tor th e cigar industry is th _ e c1ga1-etto 1J}duetry. So . nnicll emphaai _ a h as bee~ given to this situation, that . a .. cle . ~r unde~a tanding of th e exact relat1onsh ip between the two indt1etries is needed to. a e cur e an intel _ ligent . comprehension of it. Sonae figures concerni ng the two industries ma7 be en~1gh~en1ng. . . . . Table 29 shows . a .. comparison of the per capita . cons1 : 1mpti011 of q~ gare ~nd cigarette a the United : states from +~00~1~38. In 19 00 the pe;rcapita col')aiunp t1on ot cigars was 7o~s. while in 1938 i t h$.d declined to 39.5, decline -' or 44 per cent ~ In 1900â€¢ the pe r ~api ta conslll{lp tion of . cige.re ttes was 54 . wh1:le in 1958 it ~ d increased to _ 1,.312.3, ~ ricrease or 3,66<;> . per cen~ . Cigar c ons1unption was twice as great as cigaret~e cons111rrp . tion in 1900, '!'hile 1n 1938 thirty :tl>.ree times aa. many cigarettes .. were . conaum~. . ' . . _ Thie _ caraparison in _ ight be . qu~1f1ed by . taking . :into coneidera ti o . n the fact a cigar 1 . e larger . than a c:\garetto a gr~ _ a ter ~ales pi-ice. . ~e ave~age selling pric . e of a c ! gar 1â€¢ 4 .s _ ce nts. as compa_red with a lit _ tle 1e se than 1 cent for a cigarâ€¢tte, s o the pr . ice ot : th~ cigar is about rive times a~ great _ . Afier tb _ ~s . al:lowance is made , the contra.st 1: n cons11mption trends ia ve ry striking. . . : . . . . . .. ' . . , . . : ' . ' ' : ' ' I . . ' . .. ' PAGE 50 . . . . . , ' .. .. . , . . . . , : 38 . . . . . .. . . . . THE CIGAR . JNDUSTR Y OF TAMPA., FLORIDA : . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . .. ,â€¢ . . . . ' Cigars reached . their peak . in per captta conaumption in the .. United States in 1907, and _ since that yeait hav~ been steadily de clining . TJ:?.e higpest per . c9:pita con~umption for cigarette s . was in . . the mos t . recent year, ).~3a. '. As per capita cigarette consumption has in . creased in ._every .. _ year sinc . e . 1900,. wit.h the except . io;n ~f 19 01 . , _ 1920, . and the depr~ssion years, this . mignt indicate that it is . ~till going upward and has not r~ached its peak. Evep the depressi~n did _ not check ~igar.ette c _' on _ sumption very much. These comparisons show : t . hat the cigar industry has be . en going .th!roU:gh a very unsatisfac..: tory period . for many _ years, while the c1:garette industry has en:joyed . a remarkable expa~sion. , . . . : rt mignt b . e pointed . 01,.1~ that b .ecause an . i nd~s~ry is not , . prospering, it do~s nO:t ;raecesaarily follow that every . can1pany 1 n t:q.e industry is operating un~er . unfavorable c 6ndi tions. _ TheJ' . e . are some modern a~d _ effi c 1ent cig8:r conipa~ie _ s wh~ch . are . being . operated very efficiently an~ with satiara ctory re . sul ta. These are -scceasful individually, out for the : industry e,s a whole their scce s s is .. o . ffset by . the poorly-managed, inefficient plants Tab~e 30 _ shows tp~ compar~tiv~ vaiue Qf the products of the ci . g ar and cigarette industries in the United Stat . es. In 1909 the .: value of . ciga . rs n;ia-rketed ~aa.$21 . 4,000,000, or 5.2 times tl).at o_:f ,. ci g arettes, ~hi . ch was $41 . ,000 ,ooo. l11that year c i g ars mad~ Up . . 51 . per cent or the value . o f all t obacco products; while cigarettes comprised lO per _ cent. Tp.ere was a considerable amount of amok. irt g . tobacco, chewin g tobac ~o , a~d snuff produc.ed at th~t time. In 1937, the value -. of cigars produced had decli~ed to$169,000,000, w hi le cigare ttes _ h ' 9:d _ icreas~d to $95 8 , ooo, ooo _ , or . 5. 7 times . . . . . ' ~s mu _ ch . In 1 9~7, c t g arettes accounted for . 76 per ~en t . of , totsi , t _ obacco prod:ucts and ciga r s oply 13 per cent. In 1 937 cigars had . declined to one-fourth . of ~heir . 1909 . proportion of tot~l topacco pr.od~cts, while oig~rettes . had incre ased their propo ~tiori .. about . seven and one-half times. The actual increase .in the value of ' -. I . cigarett~s -produce.d during this period was 2,395 per . _cent, whl le cigar productio;n - â€¢~a ~eclining 30.7 per . cent. . .: . The n11mber . of . wage~earnera in each o . f . the . industries compria in g the t _ obacco products group ia shqwn f' o~ each year . from . . 1919-l9 37 in Table . 31. An ~nteresting thin g s:tio~n by the~e . figures is that there are still over twic~ as man,employees in the ci g ar _ p . lants , qe~p i te the : dispa . ri ty in volume and value of . producti on. The reason . f or t h is is that the cigarette plants use la . rge machines tor mak ing their products, and have mech$.ilized e qu~p;ment ~or other . operations . in their plants, so require a _ compara ti ve ly small , lab o~ force I ~ n propo , rtion . to . their . _ outpu " t. . Even in the mechani zed cigar plants, . a larger 1')1Jmber of . emp ' loye~s . . ar~ required for . the s~e voiume o~ output _ tha~ in the cigarette .. pl:arits . ~ As the cigar industry contains a large number of hand .. plants, and semi-ma qhine . pl~nts, the t . o . t~i worke;rs employed are eonsid~rably . in exqese . of the requirements or th . e cigarette . indu~ try. . . . . . . 'l'abl~ 32 show ~ the ave;rage nu~'ber qf hours work~d ~eekly . . in the t~qacco products indust~ies . From this 1 t is seen that . the hours in the ,. c igar indua h~ ve be~n unif'o1'm . ly long~r than those . 111 the cig~r . ette industryâ€¢ In tp.e 1 ate~t year epown, ci.gar. . . p lants had en average we . ~k of 36.3 hours, whi:;Le the aver.age ~eek for the ci g arette . industry was 34.3 hours~ .. . . : . It has . been stated .. ~hat th . e . lack of ad~ _ quate adve~tising _ by the _ cigar . industry bas been _ p artly re~pon~ibl~ for its doiti11wa~ = ~rend. At the same t~me it was stat . ad that . ef~ect . 1 ve adver . tising . by the cigarette . industry . plQ.y~d , an important part 1 n its phenomenal ~uccess. Just what is the situat.ton relative to the com" para ti ve advert isi~g . of . t:q.~ tw , o ind.us tries . ? . . ,; . . i;rable . s 33 ~nd 34 con _ tai n t~e answer to this question. Thea . a . show the r _ eapective advertfs ' in g that was 4one i n 1938 by lead . in~ companies 1n . _ t~e two 1nd\J,stries Tw _ el.ve _ qompani~s c~mprise the c:igar manu:fac~~ . ing g~oup, . while t~ere ar . e :fou~ . companies repre. senting the cigarette . industry~ Thi s might appear . as an 11nequal . comparison~ . but it .is not, as the twelve cigar companies are re-:. . . .

PAGE 51

. . . ' . . . . GR()WriI AND PROBLEMS OF THE r:tG~R JNDus rRY u. s . ' . . . . . . . la t1v~"ly 18118 . important 1n the Qigar 11lduatrr than are the tour ci garette companies . in the c~garet~e illduatrJ. . . . . . 39 . The striking thing about these .tigure1 is that in 1938 the four cig~rette c~pa~iea _ spent a total o.t' . 135,409, 000, while the t welve cigar ca~â€¢J?&nies ~ere ape~ding t2 . ,877,~o. The adve.r:tlsing expend! _ ~ .tor the . c1gare.tt-, . grop _ was thus 11: .6 times as . ,,.,at a s tbs t . o.t the cigar . ociw1,pan1es. . Thia seems to bear out the bi pre~sion t.hat . the eigarette .. 1na,1stry advert,-sea mu-ch more extens ively th&J?, the : oiga~ 1~~atry-. 1 . . . = . The _ re . apective types of adv~rt1s1ng engaged in by the ccm.. p an1e s in both induatr~es can . be seen tra11 ~he ta't?lea. The o~g~r . aq vertfs ~ng is moatly through the medium . of . ne.-spaper.s. 80 per cent o f the to . tal being of this type, :with . 23 per cent in radio adver ti sing, . and a ve.ry s1.11all . amtnmt 1n magazines. : T)ae cigar~ tte ca11: p _ a nies carry 57 .4 . per ce~t of . t~e1~ adye~1s1ng in 24.4 p e r cent _ in mag~z1nes, a~ use the r~diQ ror 18.2 per cent. lfuch .' difference exists 1n tl)e advertising appeal ot cigarette a nd ci g ar advertising . . The former is :tor th~ purpos e of creating new smokers as well as to : convert present _ axr,ok$rs ' to a partiat1lar b rand. MQst of the cigar advert1s1ng _ 1s bastcal~y a oanpet1t1on o f r1nna within the c,._gar 11'\dustry, e~ch striving to further its b rand at the expense o.t other c1 gar manufact~rs; and all -. appeal i np; ~a exis"t;ing smqk~r . a . . U~til a broader co nc . ept of advertlaing is a _ dopted lJJ . cigar manu~acture~s . enaphaa1zing the cultivation of ne w sm~kers by 1ndustry-wide advert . 1sing, the cigar . industJ-7 will n o t gal~ . 1 ts lost ground among American . ~onaumera . . ' . . . t 6 .. Operating . Co _ ~t~ and . the Re~ults of Operati~na ... ' . . ' . ' Tabl e 35 contains. _ f igures ga~her . ~ by the Census or )la o,1t'lc tu res, sh . owing certain operating .ata :tor the ~,gar industl'7 of the United _ St"-tea in o~nsua . years from 1859 to 19397 . . . ~e number . of establishments 1a first showr1 , 1d it . should be stated in this connection that only . the larger .tactorj.ea are in cl uded in thi a census.. A st~iki~g fact le that there were cigar est~blistnnent~ in the U:ri1ted States . in :}.859 than in 193'7. . However, the : o~ea operating in . the former _ year ~er . e ve _ ~ sma 11. The . niunl)er or cigar . manufacturing establishments reached it s peak 111: 1904, 1th 16,394. F'rODl that year . there waa a steady de cline to 693 in 1937. : Th _ e _. l'l11mber of . wag1J-e&.1ers _ in the cigar _ ind11stry: to a peak . or 140,955 in 1914; then declined in ~;1mber each year t o 1937, â€¢~th a . a~igbtl7 1ower to~l . in . the depre~~ion. Jn 1937 th ere . were 65 ,87~ workers in the .â€¢ industry-. _ . . Wages paid were h i~est in 19 . 21, , wi~ a total o_f t 91,5SO .' OOO. I n this year the . pr~ . c~ level â€¢~s very high, whieh. . accmmted partly fo r this . large tot~l. TJ::le . high . r~ gu.re given for :l,.925 1n~ludH ciga _ rettea, ao shoul~ not be uaed. Pro . rrr ,. this peak in wages there w a s a decline tot ~0,061,000 1~ ~ . }-953, then a . rise to _ ts7,52a.ooo in 19 3 7 . . . . _ . : . Average a nnua1 wages i.ncreased tram . Pl 7 1n 1859 to 18315 _ in 1923. . 'l'hey declined . t . o tss1 in the ~epreaslon .: y _ ear . 1953, the1; ~ in c rea:;s~ to 1671 in 193'7. Weekly wage1, . eo,1iputed on the baaia _ or average nimbe . r o.t . weeks worJ{ed, were 115.43 in 1937. . . Ka~erial co_ats and value . of pr,b9uct followed the g~nâ€¢~â€¢J trend of the indua . t ry, :be . 1ng . ta7,341,QOO and 1169 . ,237,ooo reapecticely, in 1937 . . . . . Table 36 shows the reia tion or . the cost or . materials and labor to value of product . It is . seen that ... mater1ais . comprise slightly . ov er half of the val _ ue Qf : the finished e1 g. ar$; and labor b-,tween o n e-r ourth and . one-fifth. The 1,roportion . or each . tQ the total : has in . c reased -sli g htly since 1929, m ~ter1:~la rrom 44 .4 per cent to 51.6 p er cent, and labor ~om . 21~6 per cent to 22.2 per c-ent . . The : proportion of total cost that 1~ represented b , y labor is m uc h high~r 1n the . Tampa h~nd . plants than . 1n t~e natio , nal 1141\lstry., . . . . . ' . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 52

h . ' I .. :, . . I . . . . '' . .. . ' I ' ' . . . ' 40 ' . . . .. .. . ' . . ' . ""' .. , .. THE CIGAR IND USTRY OF TAMPA , FLORIDA . . . : . . ' . whil~ tha ~ for mater . ial _ s _ is lower. Figur~~ given in Table . 80,. . Part . V~ of the Rep 6rt, show . that 1.abor comprised an averag~ of _ 40~5 per cent of cost or . sal~s, . to b a~co . 30.2 per cent . , and tax~~ _ 19.2 pe r . cen:t. in the Tampa hand plants , durir;i g th~ period 1930'"'."1938. tn Tab1e 37 the average weekly ~age per -wo~ker in the cigar . industry is given . for. . the , . Un.1ted State . a and .. the principal p:roduoi.ng s . tate s , for census years from 19~7~1937 : . This wag~ 1 s bas ed OJ) the average n11mher of ~orking weeks. . In 193-'7 the a:~erage . cigar wo:rker . : in the Unit . ad St . ates :receiv . ed J13 . 43. . : . . . . Of the 1nd1 vidU:al ~tates'New JE?rsey _ pa id the highest average . wage in its cig~r . f act . ori _ e s, .08 p~r ,eek. The modern hand . fact or ! ea in New . Jersey us _ in g the c o mpeti t 1 ve me : ~hod of ~anufactu.re . . have much h ighe . r 1ta g es, b ut t h er-e _ are many small hand . . and machine " plan . ta payi ng low w a ges, . whi c :q. r-educe the a . tat . e's average. The avel'age weekly wage ~e~ei v ed _ l? y Flor i . da . woi-lcers _â€¢ was $13.7 7, while t};le average w ag e pa~d in New Yo _ rl:t 1ras tli.'14. . : _ . The a vera g e wage paid in Pennsy1 vani a . was$12. 79. A . a he.a been noted, th e (?i ga r indust _ ry ~n thi . s . a t a t~ is lar g el _ y mechanized. . The . modern _ maehin~ plants 9r Phtladelphia have a wage average considera b ly' : higber than thta f igure _ , but th . ere ar-e . a number . o . f . smal . 1 .. , â€¢, machine plants 1n o ther section s of Pennsylvania . , makin g very ch~ap ci _ gars an~ payin g l ~ w ~a g e _ ~, . w:hic~ have . lowered the avera g e Wf:ige . . paid in _ t~is . st _ a te. . . .. _. . . This _ table _ _-. a1so ~h o . â€¢~ de . cr~~se d = average . jages in the _ cigar indstrj, for the ent~re . cq unt ry and fof . each of t h ese . indi~idual st a t . es. . The d ecr~~~~ has . be~n . gre~t . e s~ ior . Flor ida . Howe:v~r, inasmu ~ h . as the figures f ~ r the . earl ier yea rs . included _ the cigar"".' ette . industry, it is di . ff'1 c ult to make exact c 6 mparisc;,ps. Aa. the . , c i g arette production _ in ~lorida i . s .. ne _ g).lgible, it can be concluded tha t . the w~ g e d ec1. i ne in : th is . s tate ha s . b een t ~e sharpest : or any. Wa g ~~ in New . Je~s ~ ~y . hav:e . ~hown the . g reatest st abili . ty of any 9t the :at at;-es in :tnis = group . , a ~ d have record . ad the greatest increase since 193 . 3 -.. _ . .. . _ . Table . 38 cont~in s . ann a1 summary in.dice~ f or th~ ~i g ar in.. . dust ry for the per . tod ~919-1936".; the year 1929 be 1ng us~d -. a$a base yE;)ar . From , this ta b . le 1 t . can -. be a: ~ en ~ that e:rp.ployment in the 1n. d u ~ ~ cy has decrea: sed mch m o r~ rapidly than production. ~ 1919 . . the epiployin~nt . index wa~ 13 5 .8 . as compare ' d . w1 th the production i ndex of 112.3. In 1936 _ the s1 tuat1 . on was reversed, with t~e . pro du c tion index be i ng 77.6~ and the employment ind ' ex . 66.5. Between ~hese ye~ra producti ' on d e er . e a sed 3 . 0 per cent, bu~ employment . . decreased 51 per cep.t. . . . . _ .. numbet of . man-hours ~~qtrired . ~n the industry has show _ n a . Pron ounced decline . or 64.1 pe;r _ qent 111, the period,; or from ~38 to 49.6~ In e-~p1ana~ion . of thi~ __ 1t 1~ -seeri . t~t the output pe _ r . ~a.~ h~r . has almos . t doU:bled, 1n c reas1ng . from 81.4 to 156.5 . T~ out~ . put : per wag_e earner has likewis:e . " increased, from 82~7 ' to 116 . 7, ... or 41 . pe1r cent . . . . . . . . , . . Tlles~ f' igul' . e~ refJ.~ctig the , trend . tn the ~ re~tict 16n of _ ~orkera and man-hours, and the !ncre9:se in outp~ 1; pe,r work~r a~ per . nian-ho11r . , show . ~he r-e~l t _ s . o . f ~echaniza . ti oii . a:nd mo dernizati _ on or . the cigar industry. . : A large pr6por . t _ i-0n : ot . . t:tie operations of the industry, wbic~ -~~e ~orni _ eriy i pert.o~ed , by nd labc;,r I ~e ncâ€¢ ~ .. .-. bei:pg done by ms c~ines, ~i~ea by :tne()l): _ anical proc~ss e,s and _ mor~ . eff _ ic1e nt plant ._ operation . Tlle -se : or _ni~ _ clJ,lne _ . t _ echnique sng effi c iericy has gr _ eatli r~d.uc . ed the need :ro~ le.;bo~ .111 tlle cigar ind11~try. . . . . . . . . .. . . However, the ' reduction in employment in _ the cigar indust:ry h~s not been _ caua~d ~ntirely . by ~echani z ~tion. Accordt~ . to a study made of . this aitu4tion by w. D~ Evan~, of tbe Bur.ea of' La b or Stat _ istics, on:J_y abo u t one-tbird o . f the . d ispla:cement was . cause d by machine ry, . th~ rest : being . due to the decrease . in . the : . volume of proc;luction. . _. .. . :: "Abou _ t 4'r, 400 . wage . earners . were d1S~laced _ r r 0111 t,b.e cigar _ dus:tryduring the period . 1919-1933. Incr eaped --use of au toms tic . . . . . . . . .. . PAGE 53 . . ' . . .. ' . . . ' . . . . . 'â€¢ . . . .,. . . . . GROWTH AND PROBLEâ€¢S OF THE CIGAR INDUSTR Y IN THE U.S. ,,. . . . . . . . . I 41 , . . . . ciga r -~inea terminated . the ~br'4 . 1 ces :, Of a~~t t6,600 of ~eâ€¢e ,age e.arnere. Deorea~e in t~e tot . al annual vol11me or pr~'\lCtlon, tn part compenaa ted tor bJ' a shortened woi-k .. week 1 . }:las , ~esu;i. t~ iri: th e d~splacemen~ o~ ~bgl).t, but prol)ably somowha ' t f1twer tbl.n, . 30 . , 600 wage . earxter . s." < 1 ' .. . . . . . .... f , . .. . . . ' .. ' C" . . . . In Tablas 39 and 40 can be seen the internal . revenue colle . c ti ons from cigars . : an d . c 1garettee ,. over . a: :p~I' , iod of __ year _ s and by s ta te s~ ~e . first of thes . e tables :shows ~otal internal re ven u e co~lections tr9111 1913-1938. There is a strik~~ . difference in th e smount s collect~d from . the cigars . and cigarette~. In 1913 the c ! g ar re . venue ~as the lar . ger~ _ but in 1938, while cigars pald$ 12 , 7 51 _ , . ooo . in . reven1:1~ taxes _ , ci~arettes pa . id : '493~433, _ 000 . ~e c~g a r et te ;r . evenue ~s grown em~~lngly in . tnis period. 'l'lte inte rn al revenue paid _ by the c , igar industry: has declined 44 pe~ cent b . e t ween 1913-~9'38, or fran t22,-796,000 to $12,751,.000. This ls :l ue . bo th t o a _ redue tion . in cigar output, and a ' shift to the g r ad es of cig~s, on which the revenue t~ is much 1ower. The second of . the t$bles . g1 ves the internal revenue re~eipts fr o m ciga . rs, _ accor _ ding . t . o the diffe r ent sta . tes. Pennsylvania p ay s the largest amourit t,4, 00 5 ., _ 000 : , which is almost one--third ::>f t h e ~9ta~. Florida pays th _ e . next . largest emo11nt, $2,323,000, )r 18 per cent of the total. New Jersey pays$1,855,000 or 14.4 p er _ cent. Bew Y~rt, Vi _ rginia, South Caro . lina and Ohio ea~ pay n o re than one-half million dollars in inte~nal revenue taxes. . . ._ . . It is believed th:at some in f ormation c oncern1~g the e~n1ngs )f Ame _ rican c1gâ€¢r. men,utacturing _ compani~s ,rill be of in~erest to ~e a de rs . of th:18 Report . . Such figures sbow ,the results of . operations , ~ o r th ese . compe.nie _ s , . and indi ' cate the profitableness . of cigar ~a nufac turin,g. will also serve . as bases . or comparison with c he . op erating results of Tampa cl gar companies. It was not poa~ible ; o _ i nclu de a large nwiber of cigar . coinpaniea. in .tbis tabulation. ~o f i ve or ~e . most ~port~nt ones in the industry were selected. ! o st o f the . se carâ€¢;panles use the mac~ine pr _ ocess, the ~eri~en Cigar ,ompa ny being an excepti~n in . producing the bul k of its output by L and . They are . reputed to be efficiently oper . ated. Tables 41 and ~2 g iv e the -e~rnings o f these ~ ompanies ove~ a periqd of ye~ra. The fi~st of these tabl;es sho~s the ea.1ln g s a.s a ~rc entage ,r net worth. This gives the ret1..1.1n on invested capital, wh'-ch is l il e xcellent , index . or operat1.ng results. It is seen t n at npne of : h e co mpanies has . suffered a loss since 1933. Two of the . se C9m ) ani~ s .did not -have any lo~s~s during this . peri9(i, while two had l loss in only o~e year _ anq. th~ r~maining _ one~ losses in only two ears. The . deti ctts ot the Anierican : Cigar CartpallJ" in 1930 and . 93 1 were in the . two years j.nn,1.ediately pre . ceding the removal or ts plants f'roar, Tampa and Havana to Trenton. . . . . . All but one ot tb:e compani es , had a return on Cf:lp i tal exceed ng 5 . per cent 1 _ n _ 1938, one of . th:ese malci:t.Jg 8 per cent and one . 2 .3 per cent. o~,one or t~e compan1e s . had unsatis ractory pro '. its of l per cent. The earnings of this compa1Jy bave decreased .. :rom 35. s p _ er cent in 1927 ~ to 1 per cent . 1n i938, the cause ror h is trend being unknown. Two c;,f th~ c01npanies have had a _ reduc ion ~n ea1-x1ings fra11 . the returns in 19~'1, . :t>u t are . still ea1-x1lng bo y e 5 per cent!' . The , earning~ .: of the two rama ining c0111panies re about on the level with those in 1927. The second of these . ab les g1 ves the e&.t'll;ings p~:r sb:are o~ ~011unoh stock of these co:11 . a n ies . ~~er a period of . years . . The ea.1~ni~a ot these large cigar : con1panies are in sharp con r ast . ~i ih those ot the ~e~pa ~and plants, which are very niuch :> w ~ r. These ar~ gi v-~n . i n Taple 77, ' Part VI ot. this Report. The record <;>f earnings . of the~e . cigar . companies seems to de ) nst rat~ that l arge~ . well _ -mai:iaged plants, with ef-f1ci~nt m~thods ' . . . . . 1 . The C ' 1:gar Mttnuf~cturing Industry, 1936 1 . ~a t e a Go~eI~liXttent . Print ing Oft'ice. t . . . .. . w. D. Evans. I i g 2 United . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' .

PAGE 54

I I . . I ' J . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . ' 'â€¢ ' . â€¢' . \ 42 , . THE CJ . GAR IND : USTRt OF TAJIP'4, FLORIDA . . . . . .. in the arxi _ modern . ~ste1:11s . or ma~ufacture , . ca11i prosp . er f'acturing bus~nes~, even in _ depl"essio~ yea~s~ _ .. it . A : s thj. . s . survey ~s not . b~en . con:~ ern~ . pr1marily w1 th th~ na ti onal c igar indus try, but with the cigar industry ot Tampa, . was not intended to .. go fully i~to the national e1 _ tuat1on. The 1ri f~â€¢ination given about the _ clgar indus~l'J.: of the u.n~ted ~tates has been for th~ purpos~ . ~t fae111tating a ,' better understa nding of the posi tic;,n ot . t.he Tampa . plant . a in tl1e entire industry . , together with some o~ t.Qe1:r . joint problm,a. . . . .. . \ . ' . .. . . . . ' .. . . ' , . . . . . .. ' â€¢. . . .. ' . . . . ' . . . . . . ' ' . . . -.. .. . . .. . . .. .. , . . . . . . ' . . ' . ' . . . . . . . . .. . . ' . . . .. : , ' .. . ' .. .. . . . . ' \ . . , . . . . ,â€¢ , , . . ' . . . .. .. . .. . . . \ . .. . . \. ..

PAGE 55

. . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . Part IV . . . . ,â€¢ . . . DEVELOPMENT OF "IHE TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY J .. ; ' . . . . . 1 Early Hie.tor, 1n l81 West . ,. ... . ' . . ,. .. > ' .... ' .. .. . . The produotJon ~t c1gims 1n ltey West â€¢y be tr.aced as tar back as 1831 .. w:'.Qen William H. w~1 op~ra ted _ a :factory employ ing about fifty wor1n,,,.~. Wall' a .factory was c;les ~royed b7 .fire in 1859 ' . Others were engage4 in c igar mariutaotlir1ng in the period. prior . to 1868â€¢ but : that _ year~ marked by rebellion in . Ouba again . st Spanish rule . , ~r the Key West . im.ustry begin moi-e than two deead es of growth. . Developnent of c~ga . r _ i,1 . anu.faoture in Key . Weet required the prese~c~ o.r. skilled . Oub an cigar..1iAk~r. s . : Many sucb pe rsons wer~ among thoa~ _ fo!ce~ _ to nee . the Isl,id . of _ Cuba be cau se of political views or -_ a:otivtties. Moreover, certain Sp&Jl ish me.nufa~tur~ra sought Key West because it offered greater secu rity .. for property end lif:e. . . Th~ fi .' rst . c.ig~~ fi r~ to leave the unstable . conditions ot . the sp a.n ish colony in yuba was that of Senor V . Martinez Ybor. Be cau se he ~ w.as . . suepected o r opposition to the . Spanish gove rnment, t h is . _ tac . tory opera tor moved to :trey West in 1869 . in SE3arch ot . saf ety . fl"oni depredations fra11 . Spanish volunteer troops . . Estab lishmet Qf . YbQr 's .factoey1n .. Key . West ma~ked . the fonding of Florida~s clear Hayana cig~r . industry. Ed~ardo â€¢~~ara was made a partner in t.he Key . We _ st firm~ At'tb-r~ards . , he bece,110 a g1 eat leader 1n the Tampa ciga _ r ' ind us t:cy. . . . The trans.fer or Ybor â€¢s factory oper.atiotis from Havana to Key _ Wes t was ._ .followed by the ~ establishm~nt of cigar pl . ants in . K97 West by the following . .firtras . : seidenburg a . n:1 . Company, E. H. Gato an d Company, George W. N1::chol s Ferdi:,nand Kirs . ch Company~ end Ruy Lopez Canparq . . . . . . . . . . Fqr tw~ty.-five years pre~eding . 1894, Key West held the title of "Clear ~~va.na Cigar . Center of the Unitec;l Stat(;'s." fn thia pe rio d, Key West cigars l;>eca1~ wi~ely know?} as a: qua~ity product. Aft er :rea~ing maxinrum . o~ 100, ooo. 000 . cigars annually in the per iod . ~890-1894, the : cig~r output ot this Florida i sland-ci t, beg an to de~line~ The dcwnwa~ tr~nd was checked by a revlval w h ~ch . _ saw the 100,0 _ 00,000 ,nark agairi reached in 1911 _ . . . . . . . 2 Establishment a.nd Early Progre ss 1n Tampa.. . ' . . The way was prepare4 f.or an exod~s of Key. . We . s t fa ctoriea to Tampa in 1886 when Ybor and Manrara considered :r-emoval of their fac tocyop&rat+ons to lfobile , Galvest;on or Ne~ Orleans. While ' the . offe . ra . : of . these Gulf cl ties were llder . ~ons1derat1on, Mr. Ybor met. Ignao~o Haya, an~ther cigar manuf:acb-er from NewYork,11ho was also look _ ing for a good branch plant lo cation. In ~urn the7 met Senor Dori Gavino Gutierrez,a Span!$. g~ntleman who -was returning to liew " York by water frat~ .. _ a trip to Tampa. H _ ie mission to . the ,~ village had been to investigate the possible location tor a prese1v ing factory to . mak~ tood delio~ctes ~rom . tropica 1 frui . ts. Senor . Guti e:rrez had t>een impr~sse~ by the future poss1bil1t _ ies of T&Jnpa as a m4nufac turing center . and in the course of conversation th Sen~rs Haya. -. and Yb . or., _ ' he i ruiuced them t o _ return â€¢ith him and consid er t~e merits c;>f that v1:):lage as a locat iQn for the~r .factories. Wh en the cigar manufacturers saw tbe proposed loca tion they were impressed . with its . cl1iuat1c and .~ transpoi-tation ap.varitages but were not satisf . ied w1 th their offe . r fr~ tbe B . oard of ~ra~e . The presi. de nt of . this .' oi-ganiza tion :i.ri 1886 . was co1one 1 W , . _. B. Hend erson . As th e vis1~1ng . ma~ufac . turers started to return . home, Colonel Henderson m et and informed theâ€¢ that he was authorized to of.fer . a& a further co ncession a large area of 1 oca1 iand.s for the small sum of 16,.0QO. This offer . inclu~ed every other block in a strip ~f land iri what is no w Tampa Heights and the uptown distric~ of ~ _ or Ci~y , along Seventh Av enue to t he Bilis borough River _ . _ 1l'hls : 1nducemen~ . ~roved su.tflcient. . . . . . . ' . 43 . . . . ' . ' ' . ' . . . . PAGE 56 .. . . ' . I ' ' . ' . . ' I .. .. â€¢. . ' . . . ' , . ' ' . ' .. . # 44 . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TA PA , FLORIDA .. I . . ' . . . \ . . ~. . . . ly att . ~active , and ~â€¢esulted in the rem val . of . the clgar _ fac tories . . of t;b.eae mail\lfa i c . turers to . Tampa. . . . , The huge area . a of land ~cquired. . f r so small a sum . were to b ecome tbe . founda tioh. f<;>r two .. re a1 est : te orgapiza ti om,â€¢ .. Th~s~ were the Ybor City Land , and Develqpmen Cbmpany . , ~nd tbe Sanchez and He.ya intere sts. The former eompan . iri . corpore.ted in 1886 h~d as 1ts . orficers: : Vâ€¢ M. Yb ' or, presi~en ; Eduardo -. Manrara, . vice. p residen t; Geor g e rr~ Chamb . erlin , secre~ary; and Peter o. Knight, . . I . . . a t t.orney. . 1'he Ybor land company me.de axtensi _ ve purchases in a~di t 1on to . land f . + , rst . aQqu~red as ~ sub~;1dy : to cigar manupactur1ng . The th _ ird . fact . ocyto locate in 'l'~pa was tha t of Lozano, Pen day and Company, 1r}:l~ch started ~p~rati n in January., iaa a. In the followi ng year, the . B<;>ard o f Trade use a ca~ bonus plus land donations .of the Ybor city Land a11-d De elopmei;it . Company to attract th _ ~ R . Monn~ 1 . nter.ests to T&npa. F , or period : of approximately t en y ea.rs puildin g s for . incoming c igar anu.facturers we:re offered free of rent in exchan g e for a .. contrac . that they would employ _. n ot _ 1 ess _ th:fin a stated n1.1mber of worke s and . produce not less . than a given quo ta of oiga"Ta -. _ ' . . I.nnni g ra:tio~ of Cuban ei garmakers rom Key . west and Havana followed _. ttie movement or Spanish fac~ ..,.,,. operators to Tsr,1pa S i nce . Key West was the _. center of' -. Qul;>an revolutl~nary activities, th e ~t ra.iried _ :relations betwee:p Spanish nufacturers and : Cuban c1g armS:kers caused con~iderab . le diffic 1 tj-. Adde d to this was the s t rif'e engendered by cons~antly rec. rring 1abor . troubles As Browne remarks: . . . . . . . . ' . in dus tcy-, were constantly occurrin g the e-in. " 1 . , : After . . a costly strike . at . the se i . denberg factocy 1n K~y _ West i . n 1894, the operatoJ's refused t . o employ Cuban cig&.rn,,a.~ers any . longer and procee . ded to . obtain Spanish orkers to repia~~ th~m. An _ ob j~ctive a~co,;i.nt , of th~s episoo e state~~ . . "The 11riiona be+ieved . that thes e me were being imported by the inanu.fa.c.tu'.r'.ers for : the _ sole purpo se of breQ.king the poa'3r of' la b . or org~1zat1ons. They . requ~sted t t such discriminations . . stop. To this q.'emand, . t~e man~facturera paid no attention. In the end a part:i. cularly flagrant dis P egard the :feelings of th e men p r~cipitated a geperal:, strike, . and in the . r i otous dernoristration~ . w h iqh followed, sev-eral factori~~)were : wr~cked a n d the city . mad~ . un t enable . f'or _ Span ls~ workmen . " 2 . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . Besid~s :afferi~ g a _ haven of rest r om the embPoliglo of revol ut ~ona17 and labor . strife, T ampa ort ered cl'.-gar manuracturera l l b eral , in~ucements of' 1:and, fac . tocy bu fi. . ldings and ca~ subaidi-es. In the early: e1ght e en -n1neties~ Co !l onel . H1igb_ C. McFarlane . , . t h e founqer of we~t T . smpa, was . success . 1 . in establishing anoth~r c igar tow11 1n : the ~1 c1 ~1 ty . of Tampa. . customary sub . sidles _ of land, buildin g s and money w.e:~e used as means of : attracting cigar mB.f?-ui' . acturers to West . Tamp!3,. W~st Ta 111p pl~ nta were aiso granted an ad d l~ional . con~ession of . free t~xes or a . stated period. . . . . Ari . attempt was made abou:t 1900 to eyeiop a . cigar production ce n ter at , Port Tampa, w i th . seve ral pla ... ~ us 1ocated there as a nu .~ c 1eus. J:Iowever, .. these efforts . r ailed .. b ~ c au _ se or 1ns~f.t1 ci~nt so..;. cia l at~racti . pna for the ~t in cig . ar wo~~e~s, . such as were .to be fo u nd in Ybor C :ity and West . Tampa. . . The pioneer cigar factories . coming to . Tampa be tween 1aa6 ~ 19 0 5 are s h own in Table 4 3 . : . . I . . ' . . . ,, . . . 1. Key Wes . t ,, the 0 ld a nd the New, . B~ rte, J .B., 1912~ . Page 126 hlb l~ . shed by the R~c<;>rd Company, ' . st. Au . stine, Florida : . 2. Report of United . St a t e s Jmm~g ~atfo Oo~innissfon, Vol.15 . , ~age : 1 8 6 . Published by 1;1ni ted . Sta . ta~ Goverr.Jn nt Pri nting Office, 1911. . . . . . â€¢, PAGE 57 . . . . . . . J . . . . .. . " REcoâ€¢â€¢END~TIONS FOR THB . Ti.P'!.4 CIC.AR INDUSTRY 46 . . . . . .. . ' 3.:.. Buain~ae org~n1 . z~tion in th~ ~ Ind,iatn-. . _: ' . . . . . . . ' . . .. . . . ' . . . . . . ,, . . . . . The earl.7 oigar .t1JY-8 ot ' Tampa , ~eâ€¢ heay117 : on . the , toreeight of ind1 vidual , .~ ente-rpriaera. 'l'he pioneering o~ganiza ti ona were principallJ' propr.1et~rab1pa and . partnerahipe. Whatever lack of cap1tal .ex1a~~ waa c~neated tor bJ' tl]e . will~ngneaa or . ~&llp& cit1z.enit ~o . aubaidize the ea~abliabm~lt ~rnew -.tactoriee. .' l'he founders ot COlllpani ea were in men7 ca _ aea cig&J' 11 @&kers who had ac cumiuated aav,nga and ld;lci ' possessed the . _ ab~li ty to mspage~ . the pl~ ta. . ~ch . depended on av'-1la~1l.1 q~r on t obacc9. !he . success in securing thee~ . loana ~rose chief-17 ~au . the confidence o _ t bankers . in the â€¢~n~acturera' general wor . ~h -as . business m1n. The first attempt ot la~ge scale industry to enter the . clear Ha vana busin~as in Tampa arose wh~h the ~erican , Tobacco . COl_ilP&,O, or "trust", soust>:t to aonopolize high-grade . cigar manu.f'aoturi~. Bet . ore the ata _ ge s et for the trust , proper, . an 1.m1>ortant consolidation occurred which 1nv.olyed aev~:ral Tampa : concerna. Th~ Havana-A,c1'9~ican C omparQ was an ind . ependent . corporation organ ized November 9, 1899, ... th a capital _ stoe;]( or t . 10,000 ,-ooo, about . rour -fittba of mich was ou~stalXli~. The first B$vana-AJD..er1oan Oompany _ uae . tarmed 1?1' . the ca,,b~na tion ot the t , ol low ing _ ten h.c"'!' tories: , . . . . ' . . . .. . Yb9r-~a1'il Co., Tampa. . . . _. Eugene Va) , . f' . _ DS and co . , Chioag9 and Kew York. s. Ht,r;18beim Bros, and co. , . Bew Or . leans. Seidenberg . and co., xew Yo~k and Tan1pa. Jul . ,1Ja B.llitJ,ger . and Co., T&lDpa. :. . . . D. L. Tr.ujillo and Sona, . ley West. Rosener_ Arnoid and Co._. Bew York~ . . Horace R. xe1i7 ilnd: . Oo., Beâ€¢ York . ,. .. . . . . . . . . ' , ... ' ' . In Jul.7~ l90i these teri factories were transferred to the American Cigar C91apan7 . and ~y vote or the stockholders . the Havana American Oa,,p&ny was _. dissolved on Julj ~1, 1901. A new Havanaâ€¢ American C01apllll7 was organized and the cle~r Hav~llll: business ot the o~1g1nal caâ€¢â€¢p&Jl1' tran . sf'erred. to 1 t. . 'rile ~ft~cera in th~ com. pany were . to1lows: Isadore Hernsheim ~ New Orleans, president; Eduardo , Manrara . or Tallipa, vi-ce-pres , ident â€¢~ general agent tor Tampa; Eugene .vallen, ot Cli1cago, general ma11&ger. . In the years following 19 0 . 1, the Tampa plants or the Anâ€¢rican C~gar comparx; consisted ot thre . e e.lea.r Havana tao . tor=1,e s omJ?l()J'ing about 1,000 . workers . The . factories were operated as J . El.ling,,r and Compa?JY , . Ybor-lfanra~a and C~11pa~ . ~d Seidenbe rg and Compaey. Gradu~ll7 ~he . se establiahâ€¢c:ents came to be called the "trust tact i " . . . or es . . . . . . . Opposition t . o . the allegedly monopolia t1c intentions of the Aineriean Tobacco s~bs1c,.1 ary in Tampa : a ro . se not onlt organized labor but . a . lao ri:om inde~ndent. . meuutacture~e. The . trust had a1c cess to the .. economieii of la~ge-acale operation which served , a competitive . advantage pver ~e s,,,a : 11.e _ ~ . .f~s . Moreover, the tru;st factorie~ 1.nliiat~d on non-union eâ€¢â€¢P~OJ'ees. . . . . : Conâ€¢ol1datiQn . ot weaker tirlns by the strong and . absorption of old bUsineaaea 1rhoae le-4ersh1p was gone has been a process '.fairly co1unio~ to . the ; Tampa ind~at17. . . . . . In . 1919 _ the Con_.olidated Cigar con,pany, a . concern 1n~orpo_ rate . d iii _ Delaw~e, lla7 14, 1919, acquire . d the . _ following : concerns: . E . 11 . Schwartz and c o. . T J. Dwm and Co. , Jose Lovera and Co.. . . . . El Sidelo Ciga~ . Cq. Samuel J . Davis and Co. . . Lilies Cigar co. . . _: . . . . . . The . consolidated C1gar Compan_r New Yo:rk, . Trenton, PJ'iiladelphia and ' ' . . , . Bew York . . lfew York . Tampa .. ~ampa . Tampa Detroit ~rari st . ~rr~d it.~ oper.at1ona severâ€¢l Pennsylvania . . to . ., . . .. . . . . ' ' . .

PAGE 58

I I ' â€¢' ' I . . . I' I . ' I . ... . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. . . . . : . . . \ . , . THE CIGAR IND . USTRY OF . T MPA, FLORI]JA . . .. . .. . ' . . . . . .. . . .. 46 I .. . . . . The r1nn . was operat 1rig twenty-a . _ fa . ct ies in that . area in . 1925 Bran~~ which _ wer~ moved ~â€¢rom Tampa to e 1 stern tactorie s 1ncl'1de~ . DO,tch Mastera, The . Harvester, El . Side lo and The . Lovera . The opere.ting re:~ults of the ' Consolidat ed Cigar Company _ fr _ an 1926 t() 1~9 wer~ pre s~ted 1~ Tabl _ es ~l and . 42, Pa~t rrr; of this Report . . . A noteworthy s . eries of cqnsolidations begi nning in 1934 .. involved first the absorption of ~he _ Sanchez arid H~ya . pioneer . brands by _ Wengler and M~ndeli ip. 1934 . . IJ?. January, 193~ the Gradia~,..An ni s Company a~~~rbed Wengler and Mandell. These changes . invo~ved . . ~he concerttrati _ on of pra . nds formerly -. prod~ced by two otner compa.. nie s ~nto the organizati on t;>f Grad _ i~z-Ann~s. fiant capacity 1 . n . Tampa was .. thereby reduced but the individual plant capaoi ty of the : con soli~ating fiilill became more fuliy util~zed. Coats were further lo wered . by _ the economies . effected in purcha~es, sales . and advertising . . . . . . . . Recently the change of pla~t . locat . 1ons . from Tampa to . other points _ has been a thr : eat t . o the city I s industry. In the past year, Escan lente : and Company has . transi'erred . r all of ita operatio~s to what was formerly a New Or,leans branch factory. Much discussion .. con tinues to center _ ab(?ut the reasons American Cigar Company: fac. to ries . 1 ert Tampa in 1932. A n1nnber of fact ors responsible for . thi s s hi ft . .,,11 1 be discussed la.tar in this sect ion of the report ' . Fq~ m~ny years, ~ampa I a . supeIâ€¢iority as a cent~r for _ fine c1 . . ga~ s has b _ ()en . widely acci9:imed~ _ Moven;ient of tha American Cigar . . Company~ a ~ lear HavaI1:9f~ctorie a t o Trenton, : New J ers ey 8. nd the gro ,rth of dAmand for cheap c igars and _ c , igar.ettes as sttbs . tftu .~es f o r high grade cigars a.re . f~ctor a . whi . ch 1 three. ten Tampa' a la,1m ~o . dom1na ti . on in clear Hav ana produ~tio;n. . . . Instead of restrictin g its . production of high-grade cigars . to qlear :ija-f three ma _ in , gr~~ps of per~ons: 1 . _ . . . , . (a) Those possesse~ of . a knowl~
PAGE 59

. . . . . . . .. RECO.JIENDATIO . NS FOR THE . TAMPA CIGAR INDUSTRY . . . .. . . . . . . . . ' 47 wbich make _ product1 t on pr,of'i table. Over-rigid policies of trade unions have been a stimulus . to the transfer of . p . lant . a from one com munity whe~e 1 t ~s (lif:ticu~ _ t tor ~eâ€¢ methods to be. adopted to an other where obataclea ar.e less . restrictive. : . The cigar o~mp~1ea which h~ve clos~ci th~ir ~ampa Plan ta and moved to a now . location, those which have _, con~olidat~d with other Tampa companies, and . those which have c ~ased operations entirely, are show11 in Table 44. . . . . . . . . : J11 gration or eigal' _ companies troaâ€¢ ' Tampa bflve been to other Florida e.nd ottie . s as well as , to New YoJ-k, . New 0r1 eana, Tren ton and Passlac, New Jersey and ot~er points. 'ale most c . 011n1,only as serted reas~n to~ these ~emovals is unsatisfac~ory relations with loc al unions. Attempts to inst a11 new si~es o r cigars by the manu fac turer an . d the application or labor pric e s on _. the n'8w sizes con. siderably above the competitive r~tes were the _ most . frequent scource or . friction~ In pract _ ical ly . al _ l ca _ se ~ the cos~ of râ€¢'â€¢Qyal ha s _ not p~evented the migrating firln rrom establi~hing ~atiatactory earn ing power in th~ new location~ In the case _ of : the American Cig ar C6mpany, _ ~ts experience in Tampa had been m.ark~d by opposi tio n ~ot only or organized labor but ~lso of ~mall, independent ma nuf'ac~~P~~s. Moreover, in movi:,ng ts . cle ar Hav:ana , tions fro m C ub~ in 1952, it was obvious that in e>rder to attai~ maxim1m eco nomi es from large-scale production, the inclusion of its , '!ampa factorie~ ~eoame necessary _ . . . . _ The absorption . of. the bX'ands .' made by Sanchez and . H~ya, SchwabDav is . and . Wengler and . llandel . 1 by the Gradi,;lz:..Annis Company has , be en . m~nt i : oned~ Other ti~ms . which closed . during tne past ten years inc~ ude Eduardo Gonzalez and Company, .. Arguelle a j Lopez : and COlâ€¢â€¢vany, No rdacs Oiga:r C0111pany, Tamp~ Cuba Cigar Company and Serrano Bros. Wh ile . the JQ..ot1ve fQr consolidation was mainly reduc~ion _ ot over hea d costs through ~ increased . v~l,im" , th'e . chief reason tor the __ fa ctories ceasing to . do bu~ . 1ness was the financial t rouble that g r ew out ot popr mane.gem _ ent, high costs of labor and ' ' increased co st of materials. . . Much : popular interest has centere _ d about the . removal of plants fro m Tampa . as . we 11 as th _ e cl:-osing and con.solidations. rt has been est 1ma t . e4 that nearly 4:,000 persons t ormex-ly employed . in the Tampa . ind ustry â€¢~re displ aced by these movements . ' . .. 5 Evolution of .. Employer-~ployee Relat . io~s. During the first ten . years of . the Tampa cigar industry, rela ti on~ between employers aoo the~r workers . were comparatively .tree f~o m di:ff1 cu1 ties. In _ 1886 an agreement had been entered into by th e cl tizen s, w . o;rkmen . anq ma nufac _ turers \Ulder .which . ~icabl e set tl em ent or disputes was possible . The period of tranqillitywas rele.tively ~hort a~ the same , types o~ lab . or proubles . which has . exi sted . in Key West soon ~ppeared in Tampa. Accqrding to the Gov ~rpment survey _ made by ~he 111111igrat1 on o~u111ssion of 1 _ ~10, . the Laqor sit,~stion early developeq as follows: . . "Unions, international and 1ocal, representing every occupa tio n knc;wn to th-e industry, . singly and . in groups, sprang into be ing as laborers l.iloreased in ntlmber. In time the manufacturers ha d to suffer not only for their own sins but for thfi jealousies and strifes . among th~ -unions . thsns . el _ ves. _ Under leadership of un scruP\l:lous . men, these bodies became m.ore an d more unreasonable in ~eir ~ demands. Factories were often brpught to a ru1.1 stop . in .. th e bui,ies t hour~ . of ~he day, _ while a conn11it tee appointed .on t,he spur of the moment repa~ed to t~e offie~ of the company t o deme nd an i~nedia :te adj~stment o . f 8ome ~ancied or real grievance . . so arb l trary and p _ owerful . did the unl~ns . becoo1e that they _ were nen suc cessful in excluding . the . managers and owne~s fr0111 the roceaa in th eir faytories where the men were . at work. . :Naturally st:rikea, som e . of . them very bltt~r and of long durati o n, were . often the res~ lts or the . se conditions. . As , frugality 1 . s n9t a cb.a racteris. . .. . . . I . . . ' . . . ., 'â€¢

PAGE 60

. ' . .. ' . ' 'I. . ' . . . 1HE CIGAR . INDUS TRY OF TA PA, FLORIDA . ' ' ' I t.Lc of the Cuban ciga11r,akers , they . were frequently red~ced to dire strai t~ in th e course ~f' a ~ong strike. ~nd the b~d:1? of f'e~di~ and caring _ for them f'ell upon . th~ c1 tiz ns of Tamp&i .. " . 1 ' . . . ) . . ' . . _ Althol.lgh . the Int~~t1onal Cigsrm . era' . Union was fo~ed na;.. :__ tionally ' in 18, 1 t was u:naple to . mani est an7 important J1trength " in Tampa until after the gener al strike of' 19 01 . From 1886. 1.lntil 1900 the _ dominant labor o-rganiza tion wa one brought over from . Cuba:...I,a Res.1~ ten ~ia So _ c iety. During t e troubles of the . ~pani sh . . . manufacturers and Cuban . 'WO.rkers arieing fran sympathy with oppos~ ing side ' s . in the st~ggl~ :for Oub~n ind pendence, La R~eistencia we.a not very prominent~ . . . The Spanish-American War was decla ed in 1898 and Tsmpa be~ came the p9rt . of ~barkati on for troops . sent to Cuba~ During the sunnner of 1g99-, th~re lfere as many as . 5 J ~00 United States trOOl)S . encamped i n and around Tempe. . The cl ty ecsme the . headquarters of the Cuban revolutionists . _ Workers 1n t e cig a . r factories ma . de . frequent ca.sh contr . ibutions to the caus of Cuban i ndependeno . e. _. Wor kera in . one factory voted to donate . rifle each to th e Cuban . . cauee. -.. . . , . . Some . of the Spanish . manufa~ : turers ho . were suspected . o,f spy plots by ' their suspicious . workers , and n consequenc . e rou~ly .. _ treated, cons).dered leaV'ing the qi gar b siness. The offer of . full. . p;rotectiqn _ .. for thei:r lives . e.nd property came at e.n _ opportl1ri.e time :fra11 Governor H. L .Mitchell. The _ Gove nor pr omiseo. to do all 1ri his . power to pro tect .the m&nlifactur ers if necesQacy to use the state tr~opa for thi~ purpose . ~ . . . . . In one instance, the _ Centro Espano, local Spe.pish clubâ€¢ was . seized by Urii t~d States troops _ . Invest gatio:o p ~oved that a f'alse re port or1g1nat1rig with a alleged Cuba connnltt . ee had reach ed the United states Sec~et ~~rvice and that t e Centro Esp~ol . was not . in fact "a. n est . of . _spies " nor a secret . to.rage . place for in-ms; emmunition and dead ly expl . oa 1 ve s. . . . . Throughout the brie f pe . riod . of war are with Spain, bi1si~ees 111 the ci . g . ar 1.n_d~ _ stry rems. ined good. S o,rtages of tobacco exist-ad to . some extent but the ma.nu~act~ers ha protected the . ir bue1ness by the ~portatiori of large stores of C ban toba co. These imports ce.m~ in t h . e spring o~ 1896 a s the resul of an edict by, . Geri~ral Weyler, of th e ~pan i sh Army . in C _ uba, pr ibi ting exportation of tobacco after . the expir . a tion of a ten d y pe _ riod. It .. is reported . . tll.a two steamer~ . qe longing to Henry :a. Plant were sent _ ~o J{avana: . ~nd returned . fully loaded with Cu.ban to acco before : the time limit exp ired. . : '. . Th~ first general strik,e in the T pa ~ig~r . industry was ,. . t.he . . cul1111na . ti on of . c 9D1peti ti.on am . ong a sin.al but growing memb . erahip .. in the rnter~t ional piganna\kers' Union am . La Res1etenc1a Soc1â€¢ . ety. It~ :J.rmnediate . cau~e . grew out of d mands . by La Resistencia that Cuesta-Rey . and Company abo l ish . 1 t s branch factory at Jac~sonville. Re . fyaal of ~i _ s company . t~ _ di _ s~ ntinue . its br~ch was fol lowed by a . walkout of members of La Res stencia from the Cuest~ Rey factory. r~ternational Union manbe s refused to quit work; . ins tea~ they k~pt . thei r benches . and . con !nued to make cigars . La ." Resistencia counter~d by 4emand1ng that unless the manufacturers e.gl'eed to . put Intern.ati , o nal . members out or their plants~ La Res1 t . eneia . would q.eclare a g~neral . str 1ke a . d at the same tim~ .demand . an incr . ease of tour do'l lars per M on :9-l cigars mad~ . In the general st . rik;e which :roliow dâ€¢ a conun1 ttee composed, of' . the . cit . 1zens ~f Tampa. on August 6, 901, c9:used the ar.reet .of s ixte~n leao.e~s . of ~esistencia. Th. ... :were guarded ntil mid.. night when they were placed aboard _ an u .. u own vessel . in Tampa Ba; and . depqrted . to oe~tre.1 America. Memb~ s of the Oiga:rmakers ' .. In~ . ternations.l Union did not participate i . the ~eporti:rig activities , ' . ' ' . . . . . . ' ' -----------_ ,. . . ' . 1. Report Page 226-7, . . o . f united . Sta tee . !Di1r1lgr~tio 1 911. : (!ni ted Sta tes . Go~e . ' . ' .. . . C61r~issiori, ent Printing Vol . 16, Office. ' .. . .

PAGE 61

. . .. . . . " . . ; .. . . ' ., al ' .. BECo-'1JJ1106~ l'OB TBE TAâ€¢P~ crG~B ' INDUSTRY . . . 49 . . . . .. .. . . . -... . ID . : report . ot an In~tio!~111 oi11 on organ tz er during the â€¢trike, lt 11118 that: . . . . sent : to ,,,apa â€¢Dierâ€¢ an ' go.o&I â€¢'1 in I,a . Bee tatenci.i, : but thflf ' _ untor tunat elj" go with the _ lea4e1â€¢~. ~o â€¢.J.le they -.7 not intend 1t, simpl7 111111D tra11ble to,) t.h-vea clgâ€¢ 1â€¢c:i4k4i-JI and -. tpe . J.11einea1 â€¢n 1D gmwrai.â€¢\l . . . . . . . . \ . . . ! Aithc.18'â€¢ the t'a,to~ttâ€¢ r'.98Ullle'1 1'lth a ft,1'08 . the oftic,1al i,,riod ot the â€¢tr~â€¢ cont11111ed ro r ecae tour monthâ€¢ mitil 1 101-ecâ€¢ti~r 26, 1901 . 1 ll 1 at tbe tJn1on proceeded to ben1 efit b-OJll t-Ju ~qat â€¢tri\tf . itâ€¢ r 1va1 . S1tdt _ ca~e~ b7 the g1 oath of mt8 11 ab1,rab1.p at local . . troâ€¢e â€¢nty.;.t~ mf'â€¢â€¢i)~r,â€¢ in . 1898 730 1n 1905. . . . : . . During . 11~~ et,rlke or ;J.901, La Ree1atenc1a aaked tbe Havana ot La I,1g,a. = .' the . Onben ciga1â€¢wh~â€¢ u11tp-n . ~or a etr11re benet1~ tuD4 to be der~Yed n-oa contr . 1but1011e or . 10 per cent ot their . wag ... tb1a .raqueat; . waa r-ejec~ed.. . . Tito strike pTe the 1~a11an, an opportlDlity to enter ttie clgatc;;a . Jt.,,t? . " t~. . Taapl received a miâ€¢Pber ot I~~lian 11111,ipenta during the el:gb~â€¢â€¢â€¢~ninetlea &rter . large 11\11tl,era ot tha . t . natimJality llaâ€¢ been . coapelled to 1~..-e ~e city ot Orleans . following the o~ tJie cbfet ot polic . e. Practicall7 al 1 o~ these people .. re 81c1J.i.u.~ . . . . . : . . , .. On their au-J'lwal 1n .,...,., the Ital â€¢OlieJit employ&e1,1; : in the cigar :tac,tarleâ€¢ . ft-. 11nJ 011â€¢, do111na ted Spaniardâ€¢ and Ou. bans, rern.ed to adai~ thâ€¢ ail api,re1ati~â€¢ but . ~91 accepted r01Jgber 1n apS:te ~r .. ev . ~1, . -o~l ti 1. Cti!l'llllken Of'ticlal. J'ourrael~ Octotiei16, 1901. . . ' . . . . .. .... , . .

PAGE 62

' .. ' ,. . . ' , .. . . . . \ . . . . . .. THE CIGAR : IND USTR ' Y OF TAMPA, FLORIDA. . \ . . 50 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ' the c _ i gar11~kers' uni~ns were seized by o fficertl . O f the law , in an effort to p:rove that promi~Ant ~trike leaders ,rere a~ : cessories to . the Dlllrder of the . f'ac)tory bopkkeeper. :Members . of the Joint Advi so ry Board of t~e un1o~ ~ere . tempor1:1rily placed in ja 11 . pending .. the . investigation . ~ . . . . . . The conflict was orfici~lly ended on Js.Imacy 26, 19 11 . . Mem bers of five union~ voted a secret ballot . As a result , 1,100 voted to retu.rn t9 ~ork~ and sixty-six voted against it. The cause for termi~ tion _ of th _ e strike was given ~s th~ . lack of funds . , ~e Joint Advisory Boar-d b e1ng in debt . f'or $13 ,ooo paid out in st~ike re1 . : ie:f . . . . . . . . . . . ~e next general strike occurred on April 1 4, 1920. The questions . involved in the . ap~ike. . concerned the right of' . the employ ers to operat e . an open shop and to maintain the continued discharge of union "shop collectot's!' who ;rere di smia sed in Deceni:>er, 1919 . It was in this mo~th t~t . the indepeent m$nu.fac~ers o~ganized in favo:r of the open shopâ€¢ . . . . In ~he report of . the impending strike by the Morning Tr1b11n~ of Ap~il 14; . 1920, th . a f:qllowing account is gi ve . n: . . . . ' . . . "With issuance of . the strike order . , '7~613 union cigar11mk:ers will quit w. . ork, automatic ally ~h:rowing _ out of w~r.k anoth er soo non-union me scattered throughout the hundred or more factories. Oth~rs cr a:rt s wi11 be affected, mor e than 400 p~ckera and pac k~rs, i, . 500 dep~ndientes, office ~ler)cs and others, and several hundred strippers and b _ inder~, etc.~ b _ eing expectf;'d to join the _ etrii ke. whict will throw out between 11,000 and 13,000 workers."llJ . . . .. ' . . . . . As . the atri ke . was declared , . a rival organization . , the , Torcedores Socie ty appeared on _ the . scene, _ proc laiming an open . sh~Pâ€¢ . Striking Internationa1 . Union metr1be:rs charged that the T orcedores _ was merely a gJt<;>'up o:f strike breake:ra originating with the a;iploy, ~rs . . The truth of thi s charge may be queati . oned. It is etated that Torcedor ~s claimed a membership of 1,800 1rhil e . 1 t actually . had only about t1Jo hundredâ€¢ . . . . : . The extended strik-e of . 1920 _ seriously ~rippled loc a1 cigar . p~oduction. The total output declined 53 p~r cent frqm the vol~me . of produ : ct . ian in 1919. This strike was a cos~ly one for the Tamp~ c ig9:r. manufacturers as ma . 11:y of . the plants loa t b u aine as ne . ver to .. be regained . , +be unsatisfactory condi ti on of many of the Tatnpa . plan:ts today can . be traced to the los s of' customers markets . in 1920. A few manuf'a . cturers squght rel~ef by' eatabl!shing branch factories outside Tampa, . several going to Punta Gord~ a Fort Myers. The looal: labor supply was reduced . slightly by the shift . of workers to other locations. . . The strik e imposed heavy financial burdens on both employers . and , the _. I _ nt . erna tional Un . ion. The treasury _ of the International , . Union was drained of' more than a million dollars in strike bane~ fits. Each . str . iking member was suppo sed to r . ecei ve a beneti t of $5 pe~ week from the un ion, but it is alleged . that many workers . received ~everal . benefits each . week. I:r:i, : order to pay . these b . ene. fits . h~r~ds _ of thousands of dollars _ in voluntary . contributions h~d to be add~d to accumulated f'uma of the union. . . A heavy de cline in comrliod! ty , prices occurring during . the pe~ . riod of the _ strike bl'ought . drastic 1o ssea on ~nvento ~ie~ heid in factorie . a and lfarehouses . . Thia tact, t oge ther . with heavy increases in overhead coe ts p~r unit of . output, caused disa s . trous losses . tor the .' manufacturers : ~ . Subsequen~ to the strike settleme~t, two local r 1rn1s of long standing closed~ aelling their brands to others. , . Thes . e were F. Lozan o , S _ on and Company, . which leased 1 ts . plant to . Corral, Wodis~a y Co . and ,rrancisco Ar~gq _ am do., -..hicb sold ' 1 ts bra nds .. t o Sam Dav.i s , . o f Schwa:t>-Dav . ia and Company. . An . 1nteres:t1ng ol PAGE 63 ' ' . . ' '' . ' . . ' RECOâ€¢MEND'ATIONS FOR THE TA JIPA CIGAR INDUSTRY . 51 ' ' ' . t ha t of . the . "readers." . . These reaqers were hir~ ~y the workers . . to read novei s ~m Other .' l, . 1terature during worki~ hours. They w e re taken . out of the factories in 1920, end . put back 1n 1926, un d er an arrang~ent whereby th~ r~ad1ng material had tQ be . pa:aeed on by a co, 11 1,,itt _ ee .. of c;tg,r workers, . I~ :. cl~iui~ that radical . ma terial and lite~ture offensive . to . the women _ 1 . n the plants was fr equently : included. In 19~3 _ t~e. cuatoJD of the rea~ers iri th~ . pl ants waa ~1nallJ . ab , olis~ed. .. . . , . ' . . I 6 . Organization of &nployers and Employee~. : . An orga;n1zat1on O~ Tampa .. manufacturing . plants ki40J1n as ' tt>.e Tampa Cigar ManufaQ~~ersâ€¢ Association h~s exist~d since . 1900. Th is ~ssoeiat~on 1fas fo~ed for t11e purpose of cooperation in ad ve rtls1:ng and public relati':)n . s, s~~k;ng of econpml . cal frei~t r a tes, and group bandl1~g . of labor re.la tioos Its function . in pro vi ding a un~ted gr(?up for n~gotlatlon ot wage _ contract$ and the ha ndling ot labor d~sputes i _ s its present ma in jus tlfi~atlon . . It i s planned . to realize other object! ve~ 1h t he future. The ano. cia tiotl 1na inta~ .' ns an office~ ' with a full-time se cretary , . in which . rec ords per. taining to the Tam , pa cigar indust ry . are kept .. Kr. P.rarici s M. ~ck . 1a the present aecretar,of t ' he : As , sociation. ~ During th~ pa . st t . en years presidents of the . Cigar ' Manu f a.c. tur er~' As socia t10~ 1nolude d . the following; Jose Arango 1 . 1928193 0; M~aea Bust1:J_lo, 1931-1 . 932; A. Le Cuesta, 1933-1934; Anto nio San ' taella, 1~36-1937; Jose Perez, 1938-1939. . The Interi:iat ~onal Ctgal:'Dlak~rs I Union has been . the dominant 1a b or organization in t.h~ cigar i~dustry . since 1901 . Prior to t ~ a t t1me . 1.t had ' a small organization _ at ~smpa and Key West but m o st of the workers in both c1 t1es pre terrec;l local . unions. Th, p ower of La Resia tencia Was broken in the strike of . 1901. The tional organization of the C ig&.nnalcers , . un1 on ls atflli ated with the American Federation 6f Labor~ Nati onal offices a r e maint _ ained 1n - â€¢~shi:ngton, D~ C. , 11r. R. : E . van Horn being the p r e . sent national preal~ent. Slnoe the ma,jority of 1 ts . t~tal aoa1ber a rea~de : in Taâ€¢â€¢~pa,. a pereon~l representat . ive of Mr~ Van Horn i s m aintained 1n this ol ey . At the present . time, Mr, Charle a Nor ona serves 1ri -. this capacity. . . ' Seven local '\lllions of . the Int~rna -~lonal CigaI'makers I Unions are loc ated at . Tampa. ~ese include . ~e following : . ' ' . . #336 ~ ciga1,,akers #462 ::: Cigai~â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢kers .. . #474 Packers . . . . #493 Selectors . .. . . . . , .. , ' Iâ€¢ . ' . . # . 494; FactQry Empioye es (clerks) #49s c1g&J1tnakers . . #500 . C iga1~oa lc~r . s . . ' . ... The local ,ini.ons of .. Tampa are gov.erned by an executive body . . o f t he unions known . as the . Joint Adv:1s9ry Board. ' Headquarters of thi s bQard are mai~tained at the Labor Temple, . Ybor Cl cy. ~ployed mem~ ers ~re : assessed dues : of ti. 00 per. Jion th, while . unemployed mem bers pq nominal dues of . 10 cents per . montb. .-. Since a oloaed sho p is part . ot the union cont r acts of . 1938 an4 1 : 959; . e . ac.ll cigar w o rker . muat re11,,.1n in g . ood : standing w1tll t , b e union .' in order to be emp loye(1. . . . ~ -. . , . . The . p~aen~ m~â€¢â€¢tber~1p ~ri . the Tampa c . lga~ . unions . is 7_~ 690. Thi s is cona1d~rably . less than the . , members:tup . in _ the . 1920 's. In 1 92 3 there . were _ 11.s;sg -: membel's ill th e ~ocal . ; c _ igar unions. _' . A ~escr1pt1on , of -~e organization . fo~ collect! ve bargaining and settlement _ of di : spute . s ~n the .' ~'a,pa ciga _ r 1 nd , stry . L s as . f ol lows: .: ._.. . .. .:. , , . '' . . _. â€¢t ,.- â€¢. I : ' t . (a) Organization f.(K' ... settle ment or -m1.nor d isputes . in the P 1 a n ts .. . . . . . . . . . ! . . . .. . I . . ' I . As provi ' ded by the agreenient signed August 25, . 1959 , . which exp ire~ jun~ 30, 1941 , disputes . will b . e considered as they . arise in the 1ndiv: _ 1duaJ. . plants. Wheneve:r:. workers . have grievances they are reported ro the union dele g a~e "shqp collector" in ~ach plant. . . . .. . ' ..

PAGE 64

. . . . . . 11 ... .. . . . ' . . . . . . , X 52 THE GIG . AR INDUSTRY O . F TAMPA ; . FLORIDA . : Thereupon the shop c . 011 ~ctor see~s . ~ to ~emedy the complaint ; by . taking the mat~er i ~ to negotiatio~ with th~ ernploy~r. In case settlement cannot be ef f'ected between the sho p col lector . . and em j p loyer, .the . a ff air 1s referreq. to the t wo Join t Advisory Boards of the unions ar:d employers~ . . . (b) _. Or g anization for negotiation of' the settlement of disputes of a general natur , e, a _ lthougb . this might _ include the settle m e~t of minor disputes which cannot be se~tled in the indlvidual p ' lant s . \ . * ' ' Meetings o f the two . J . oi~t :-Advisory aoa rds negotla te the set.. tlem en t of . these , general issues, and unsettled pla . nt controver sies. . As already ex:pl . alned, the Joint Advtsory Board of the unions r ' epresents seven . uni . one Duri~g th . e summer of' 1939, this Board w a s composed . of . approximately twenty-eight members. Each local un ion was represent ~ d by a _ minimum of' three delegates ._ f'o~ . the . f i rst 500 membe rs with : one additional member allowed for each sub s e q1:1 e . nt 5 00, or fraction t h e~eof' . as .. large as 2~0. . Representat ~ ve . ~ . a r . e ele c~ed ann u~lly in the p e riodic el e c:tions held in the Labor T emple . . The Jo . int _ Advisory. Cormni ttee of the Cigar . Manufactur~l".B ' . Assoc1 . at 1on is appoi nted to deal with the t,nion Co.J?ni tte e selected from the . Joint Advisory Bo~rd . : . . . : In . the sunnner qf 1939, this ~mployere' cc,1,nni ttee included the :following: A~ando . Rodriguez, chairman; Francisco Gonzalez, John Levy, Jase Coleme.nares, Luis Lopez, A. Gonzalez, _: Mariano Alv~rez and Anthony rJ:.orez . . . ' . . . . ( c) Organization _ _:fQr equal . 1-zation of' labor pric es , tor . various siz es and shapes of' ciga~s manu:factured. . ' ' I . . . . .. . . . Uniformity of . labor rates between the Tampa plant , s is go,terne d by a . price. scaie org~ni zed accordin g to t..Q.e various sizes and . . shapes. . As has been st~t ed, this . , price list or some 200 dit-fer..:. -ent e izes and shapes !s ' known . a s the Cartabon. It represents a . . set of l abor pr i ces which are rarely c~anged and t~eri by means of : what amounts to blanket increases . and decreases or the rates. New s i zes and shapes can be . adopted under the supe _ rvis iori of the n i vela tin g . or : equalization co11unl ttee. This group 1e composed of . s ix 9mp1oyers . and six employees. Ariy man:uacturer who vio1a . tee the ru:ies and regu1a t1ons estab 1,-~hed in the Cf'tabon . is subject t o _: investigation and possible penalty imposed by this . equalizat ion c01i1,,,1 . tte e. . In the s1Jtmner of . 1939, the conuni ttee included: Emp _ loyers, Arman(lo Rod~igu~z, chairman _ ; Fran~~sco Go11 za 1es, ~ose Colemanares, A . Gonz~lez, A. Bustillo . a~ . John I,evy. _ -Empl<;>yees; L u is _ Diaz, PI_'es tdent; Ramon Dia~, Manuel M. Menendez , Alltonio Fuegos, ~zzaro Aloriso . , Tony Alf'$no. .. , . (.d) Or g aniza . tion for negotiating new ~ wage agreements. . ' ' . . . . . . As th~ date approa~hes f~r the . expiration of a wage _ agre ~ment b etween ~e c . iga~ Manufac~ur~rs' Association and the loca1 s ot. . the . I nte _ rna tion a1 Ciga1'D1akers' Union : , negotia~ions begin for a new contrac;t . Th~ empl(?ye ~ rs' 1abor relation~ co1m11ittee meets : with , a g ~oup selected f'r6J~ the Joint Adyisory Board of the ~1gar . un1ons b y the Board's pre . s . 1d~nt. The negotiations are assi . sted by ~er vi ces of local . attorneys for the Manufacturers' Association and . . ,. . ' ... . t h e International Ciga1111ake . rs I U:nion. . At the present tilnf;' llr. Ray c Brown . is . attor11ey for the Manu.factu~ers' Association, while Mr. o. c. MaxYfell and Mr; L . w~ cobbey represent the ~lo~. 4s soon . ~s . a contract is _ signed . by _ b . oth g roups or representat ives, . i t is s u'brnitted to the M anufact urers Association and to a mass mee ting of the ci g a~ Unions for . a : vote of' approval. If majority o f each group approves, the new contract goes . into ef':f' . e . ct :for t}:le p e riod stipulat ed. . ' . . . . '. . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' ' . PAGE 65 .. . RECOJIJIENDATIONS FOR THE T.AJIPA CIGAR INDUSTRY ( e) P rovisiona for arbi t~ation. , . ' If a dispute cannot be ca1,pose~ through negoti~ t ions ot the JQint Adv~a~ ~oards of empl _ oyEtrs and employe . es, . the ne?(t resort is settlement under t~e Consti~tion ot the International Cigar makers . Uni on. As a matter o f 1>ract1ce questions of collect . ive pa:rgaining wh1Q}?. _ rema~n 11nsettled ratâ€¢ a stated period of till1e a re to b~ handled according to provi , sions . of . the tin . ion eons ti tution. Thus, they may be submitted to ar~itration _ by a disinterested ' third party. The United States Department of l,ab . or t~ougb !ts Concil iation Servi . Ce has been called an i n several instances to . serve as arbitrato~ on _ questions . pertaining to the cigar ind , ustry 7 Recent Developments . in ~p 1-oye . r-Bmployee Relations. ' ' . . Following the adoption of the National Recovery Act in 1933 the . right of collectiv~ bargaining was granted . organ _ ized labor under provisions of Sect1on 7~a. This prompted the International Cigazâ€¢inake rs I Union to se~ Mr. R. E. Van Hor~ . to Tampa to con.fer . with manufacturers on the question of . entering a vol11ntary trae written into the new wage co ntract. Me1:lJ.b~rs of the . C1$(ar . Manufacturers' . Assoc~a . tion yielqed to this . persuasion. Later, Wpreferential unio~ . employment" was 11 _ . . e rpreted by the Department . of Labor as meaning . virtually a . .

PAGE 66

. . . .â€¢ . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .. .. . . ' . ' , . ' 54 . THE CIGA R f.NDUSTB 1 ~F T111PA:, . FLORIDA . . . . . . ... . . . . . ' . . . . ' elosed . shop. Thus in the. 1938 contract, a clause for11&ll7 holding th~ cloa e~ ~op e~istent in Tampa ,ras the tin~ step in a aeries t~ards ending ~e open : shop _ . . . . . . :: . The compet i ti ve . :eyatem ot cigar JIIAllufacture,. which 1. e been explained in previous o.ections of this Report, baa continued t~ claim a . 1arge. . share of recent . bargaining controvers~ea b~twee~ lo .. . . c . al 11ni0ns anc1 empl oyers ~ : In the formu1a tion of a aage . contract I .. l _ n July, 1937, the qu.est ion of compett . t1ve syate 1 na â€¢e .. ~n : ad. vanced t.or B.ll arbitration as provid~d by _ the . . In~6r11ational Union . . Constitution . . The q'".leation waa : 1'hether . c.~1,petfti ve . methods . should be adopted +n the men11fâ€¢ctu.r.e pf clear Havana and ~â€¢de mold. ci.. gars .sim1 lar to , methods cur ren~lJ e:mploy~d ln north.er~ fact o~ies , . and the siz . es and . prices to . be paid if th e c . a1,pet . 1tive SJ'Stem . were . introduced. 11:r, earl : R . Scqedle _ r, un 1~ed States Depflrtâ€¢trBrit of Labor . representative , wa s sent to T8.Dlpa in JaBry ~ . 19~8, to _ serv . e in the _ ar~it rat~on . In the preliminary he-1'1ngs it was . clearly establ ished rra,1 t~e . testimony or . the workers and employ. era that the comp~t . itive eys:tem shoul~ be pei,u.1 . tted . to be. , 1.1aed ~n ,:Campa a _ s _ in th . e _ nor~, that wh~n : using this system employers ahould 1 fur _ ni _ sh . the . s 8ltle . qual 1 ty ma ter~al~ as . no~thern factories, . and that . . . . . .. Tamp~ Di&:nuf'acturera sh:ould accept the same e1aas of â€¢o~kmani,l;\.iP. as northern plante. In the dec . ~s ion of Arbitrator Schedl~r, . the ' . . pr1 . ces and s 1zes of cigars und~r the ' compet 1t1:vt, met~od ~ere e s"'." . tabli , shed, being . the , sam~ as tpose .. used in .. the nor them cONâ€¢apet1_. t1ve area . The . : wide differenti.al . between shade and Havana mold prices wa s permitted 'â€¢ to J'Affl81n. as provided for . in the . existing = labor c ontract. . . , . . Following ~:iie ~cbedler Award, granting the . right . or . T ampa . cigar companies to us~ . the competitive ays:te~, seve~l man~ac turers. attempted to install 1 t in t~eir plants . . As : they tai led to . receive _ the cc;>operat1on of the _ ir workers wit~ th~ new ay-atem, these attempt . a were . a:t>a11~oned. . . , . . . _ . In applying the rights granted und~r tl;ie 'arbitrati . on aw14rd of 1 939 ~everal question~ of 1n~erpretat1on bave appe9:red .. ~t .. con~ti tutes compfJt1tive meth ' pds : as : used . in .. the . nor _ t)l? .. Bea should s _ ~andards of .. tob . acco . quality __ be draan so as to pe,r1,11 t coepariaon _ of tobac~o . used . in Ta"'pa ~1th that . in th~ north? . The labor ._ contract . of Auguet 25, 1939, _ effective th~ough June 30, +941, betwem1 _ the -' unlona . and Cigar . Jlanufacturers' Aaso ciat~on reoogn _ izes the r , igbt ot llIIJ manufacturer "to intr9d,uce . and use &Jl'1 . metpod or _ method : a, syat . eâ€¢n or . S7&tems, . or pa rt~ there of; , . pertaining tp .. any . depar t;oont of the factor.7.. " Thia proy1a1on . fur~her r~quirea th~t . a description of the new syatem ot prOduction .. t~t is d~a 1red _ ahe.11 b e filed with the .1911,1t i.dvisOrJ: . Board qr the unions and with _. the :i~ernati~nal C.i.ga1,1iakera t president or . his representative . Thereupon, the Joint Adviaory Board and . tbe labo r . ot the Ci~r :As eociation shall meet tor the eatab~isbment ~f_ a price . ' . or ~a . ge s caile on ~e new system . :i:r . the . nego_ tiati ~ parties . are unable to agree within five ~Ol'king da.J'a tram the date or _ f 111rig a description o.t the new 97atem or if either . . s.ide refuses to .. neg~ti.ate fu1â€¢ther , wage scale : shall be eatab. : lished by an arbitrator to be rorth-with appointed . bJ' the Conc 11. , 1at1on n1v1s ion ot t~e Un1~e4 States Departil1ent of Labor.â€¢ . . '!:he con~rac : t st~~es tpa t . th~ 11:D . torus and the ">iUip l o,e . ra ~ve . .. not ye t reached an agreement on the wage aoale. for c0111pe:titive .. sy stems of manufacturing cig~a ; as now u~ed. P.roy1~1on 1a ,.11,de . that th~B dispute ~ha11 1;>e ~ompoaeu in . the . 11111 nn~r â€¢lreacv deacribed J narn,,ly, thr _ ough negQ _ tiat,.,on ' w1 th1 , n a 11mj ted time of' 'fiv e working .. . days after â€¢blch .arbitration sh , a ll be ~eaorted to . ' . . . .. ' . ' . .. ' . . . ' . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. I . . . .. . \ ..

PAGE 67

. . . . I j ' . . . ' . : . . ' . Part V . . . . . . "IHE IMP<>RTANCE OF 'IHE ~ CIGAR . INDUSTRY TO TAMPA . . . . . . ' . . . . . ... . . 1 E~foo t of tbe Cigar Irad1iatrJ' on the Growth Qf 'Tampa. . . . . . ' The -' c.oming of' cigar manufacture in 1886 . t . o the village of I Tampa meant the 1'.evelopnent .. of a gr01'ing toail trom which WOllld eme rge a . aodern ci tJ' . . . . . . . . . Be~re the firet . oigar ~actory ~as eatabliabed, . the estlma~ed population or Tampa 2.000 pe _ raona . : . iloat of the people were en gaged in trading, ra1lroad conatruct1on and t~a~aportatio~, coast_ wise and foJdign shipping. St1milu~ frac, a p.ew 1,idui,try waa eoon re 1t . By 1889 the local population had :. increased to over 10.000. In a span of ae1!eral yea _ :rs . J.eading up to this date , the ~nnual vol1.1me of c 1gar p~oducti . oii h~d gro1:1 to 2 0,00~.oo o . Through the . ensuing two decades, the cigar i~du~try proYided . the nucleus for many ~portant develo~~nts connected with the pro spe : roua gx~oâ€¢~ . of . TSJ11pa. . . . . . That the cigar i ndustey was _ a . decisive factor in Tampa I a early g rowth ~s indicated . 1n the ~9 10 report of a . United Sta tes . g overn . ment conu,,1aaion study-1~ t:mmtgration arid its . rel a tion _ to the cigar industry . . A statement from tjl4' re port rollows: . . . ~. . . . "The 1nd : uotry h~s been instrumental in adding ~ar g e nu mbers to . the population of the _ city and has _ ~een by far it.s greatest . dist l'ibut . or ~r wealth. 'fl).e yale _ ot: cigars . manut:ac : tu,red in the yeF).r 1908 wa _ a $17,175 O _ O . O . _. 10 soo employ~e . s reee i{v ed _ an . a:verage w eek ly _ payr.~!~ cff : t2QO,~OO or 7~ per : cen t _: or ~he total payroll of the ciq .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . The prosperity of Tampa cigar industry in 1910 was auf:fi cien t to cause an organizer for the International Ci . gar Workers 1 Union to repor t that . s~venty-ive manufacturers were operating locally with 6,00Q me111bera of the union. . . . "Tam . pa r-or the . past five we , ~s haa aver~ged shipment . ot over a million ~-7â€¢ One week the shipment was ? ,120,0QO , c i g ars.â€¢t2J . . . 'l'.b.e .. United . Stat . es Imm1gr'-:tl:on Conm 1 ission s s _ tudy _ of cigar em _ plo yees in the Te 1 ,cpa ' area . provides : interesting ,. data as . to the num ber ~f' ~orkers emplpyed 1n 1910 . A ' ccord _ in g to this source there were employe,d in the cigar factories ,. of Tampa in thi ' s . year total of 9,858 :workers, of' wh0111 8;065 w:ere meri and _ l,.793 women~ ~e . _ g rowth in . the . J).UJllber. or ci ~ ar 1_rorkers in Tanipa _ cont . tnued conai stentI ly up t . o t~e peak . year o~ ci g a~ iproduction in 1929 . _ ~a~le 45 ~a!'a . . the growth ._. o:f . population fn Tainpa during the pe riod 1900 to 1935, compared w1t11 t1ie growth in cigar production . for the aame years . The tota~ cigar _ pr.oduction for 1900 waa 147 ,~4a.ooo . compar M ~ th a total . or . 511,545,000 . 1n 1935. The pop ulation of Tampa was 1~ 1 839 ln . 1900 and J:()0,151 ~n 19;55 . Since . . . 1~00 cigar . product.ion haa . doubled , while the population of 'fâ€¢pa has expal'.)ded mo:re than . six-fold~ '. The peak year rep~esent . ing the record cigar production 1n . ~e history of : Tampa . . was in . 1929 llllen 504, 753.000 c1gara were . made. '_ The . Popl.ation baa ~emalned . approxi mate _ lJ" . atab1e since 19 29 while produ c ~i~it . in the cigar induatry has ~ecl:fu~~â€¢ Bo~ cond~~1ons â€¢~re part : 17 ~e . re.sult of th . e :t,uaillese depreaai.01), a.~ 1 -fu.ture years . may see a. change in this . tr.end.. The decline . in cigar production in T-.pa ~ . inoe . 1929 1s part _,. o.f . a general tendenay ,as .' produ _ ction . in . the . entir ~ industry.has . been declln1.l'\g since 1 . 9 . 20. In . the p~ece~ing period of gr _ o,rth~ 1886 .:. 1929, the cigar indua t~ ot Ta11, , pa had been _ pr . oa , perous. Cigars pr9d,uced . .. . . . . .. . . ,' . \ . . . --~~..:;...~..;..,.. . . . â€¢' . . . . 1. R~po~t of In,,,,1gr~tion Co11ocals~ion, 1911 .. ~bl.ished by i;he . Un ited . Sta~es G~ve~J1D1e~t Pri~ting Office, Washington. . 2. giga:r,,wltera' O.tf icial .rourrial, J~uary 1~, 1910, . Waahington. . . ' . .. .. .. . . . . . . . 55 l . , PAGE 68 " . . 56 . . . . . ' .. . . ' : . . . . . . ... . . T]!E CIGAR INDUSTRY op TAIPJ.; . f.LOIIDA . ' . . . , . , . \ . 1n Tampa _ w8re lloied throughout the U'n:1ted States a . a qUll11tj _ cig _ a ~e . period ~f decli~e, . 1929 . 1939:, has been marked al~o by a shift tQ ch~aper . ~1 gars which helped t ; o affect advers ely the e11:rnllig11 or the ihdust.n. A :ru11 . : diacuaa~on of . this : shift in ..production iii pre se~t .ed 1.n Part VI qf this Repo~t. .. . . . : .. . -. . ne: api te . ~he decl~ne and . unaat1st .. c ~ory condit1 _ ons since 1929 . the cigar industryst irl . rema1na the major eo one1n1 c activity .in \ . Taaipa. _ However, 1t 1s _no longer "' tbe only impo?'tarit f~uatry : 1~ . the . city. Since _ 1920 tnere ha~ . bee~ ~ a ~owth at . other types . or . business .activity at Tampa$ 1fh1 . ch ha~ . tertded t o . lessen _ the _ depen;.. dence on ci gar manufacture. In 1930 the United S . tatee Cena~a : . sho'ired 25 . pe r cent or .. the . wo~ker . s of T&U1pa engag~d in . cigar : :rac.: . tor ies, aS. comp~:red w1 t~ 95.2 per ~e:.t in 1910. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. " .. . . ... . .. . . 2 Importation of " T6bacoo From. Cuba. . : . . . . I .. ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . -: A laJ:'ge qllant1t)" of Cuban t . obS:cciO 1a brj_porte4 aniiuall7 vi& : the . P.en1~suiar . a:nd Occidel'.ltai ~teemship line t1~0,,, Bav&D'1 to Port . . T1pa for us e or the T ampa c 1g ar . : 1nduatcy. . . . . Table . 46 . ~ow '3 the . total emc;,unts or toba co imported fn~Q the . United States f . rpm Cuba. '.In the pe~ year of the Ta1 1 tp~ c1gai~~Jil,1.s: . . , . . _ . try, 1 . 929; a total or-&,609,00 . 0 pounds was imported thrOUWl Tampa. .. _ This rep-r.e~ent&d . 27 __ per cent or the t ot~ 1 . unn,.anutactur , ed Cuban . to baq co c-Qmin: g into the . u~ited S~~tes. In 1958 a total ot 3,'754,000 pound a : ~f Cuba . n tobacco w~s re:dei ved : flt Tampa., which - â€¢a~ .29 p~r . . _ _ cent of th8 total ; 1mport8d Cuban ' tobacco. . . . _ . _ _ , . . The . appraiaed value of .. tobacco impe>rte . d from Cuba: a:s report81l . . . . . : by the . Tampa Of'f . ic~ of the Upited States Ous~oma shows a decline . froiil 19 _ ~ to . a' low point . or 11,928,000 1n 19:5:5. _Sincl th~~ it . ha . a increased to t 2, '720,000 in 1938. iJ.'he average val11e ptl' pound reached ~ . higp. : of t<).90 .in 1929 aft er which t4ere wa:a a d~â€¢ . cline to a va.lu~ of to . 5'7 per . po,1nd i~ 1933 ~ '.fhe prese~t value per pound 1 s to. 68 . . ,. . . . _. . ~om ~he ~~r1y hist ory or f or ~ign trade in Tampa . tobacco )laa . beeD the ~ost imp9~t:Ei~t co1amodi ty import .. In 1934 , tobacco made up 1'7 per cent of" the imports . of all the ports in ' Fl:or1da, . an4 praqtioally . all. or thj : a co11rmod1ty came in through Tampa. In 1~20, 19 , 10, 1900 e.~ 18 . 90 . the valu~ ' of tobacco import . a at Tampa: hae re~ ma1ried s~:ver~l time a . the . value or the ' ililport ne,c1; in 1.mportan ce .. . . Table "41 sho1!s .' t~e . _ d.1~tr1P"U: t1 _ on. of _ tobaccc;> importe~ through . . Tampa 1.~to the claesificat1ona used by customs appra1:sers at the _ . united States c u stoms House. __ "Full napper" ret6re to l>a}es Ot tobacco contaiping . o,rer 35 pe~ cent . wra:ppe;t' leaves wh11 . e _ peroent age .' wrapper" 1 . s the portion ot which 1a present 1:n -_ a balâ€¢ . of tobacco con . talning less than 35 pe~ cent n-.pper . l.eavea. ~ _ atemned r111erâ€¢ reterB t9 tobacco aui table fol! maJcing _ 10Dg tiil:lâ€¢r ,-cigars and fr01n 'lihicll litems have _ pot be _ en removed or â€¢strippedâ€¢â€¢ 1r the atema .. had b . eeri removed in CUba, the tpbacoo would be olaa. . . . s itied aa ~at e11m1ea. . tiller~~ ."~crap t~ l ler" . cona1ats of laa.vea . not su~t9:ble . . . f~r making long ~11ler .' cigâ€¢r!I . Part ~f ~he se~~p â€¢Y consist o _ f t obacco purchased for . .sho~ filler cigars or or . cu-t;t1nst oJ)tained as .a by-p~oduct . ~n the manufacture of lt!.gh grade cigarâ€¢â€¢ ~c eqr.ding to an analp la of! this t!lble , tlie _. . to ball qllant i :tiea or, _ ' w rapp . er 1nipor~s have increased from ! l . 2 per cent . of the total . to . . b _ accp ~por~s in 1.929 ~o 3. ~ per, c ent 1n 1938 . This ~crea:se . the p:roporti(?n qt wrappe~ 1mper of cigars made in the . Talilpa . . ; . distr~ct and an increasing1>r9p~rtion of produc~ion lil the lower . class or --cigars. On the cheaper cigars it ha . s been.necess&.ry to . _ use lower grade -;,:rappe~s or a 1argl'r . J)roport _ ion of. !!t . ach b&le : a11 . _ . w~apper . .An . analysis of the . se pr9d~ot~on _ trends . i s contained in ; other sect 16?18 . of this ij. ' eport . . . . . . .. A prov i; ~ion o t the customs a ct relatipg to the duties on ~. . ported tobacco is . t~ t 1,r ~ . s mu ch as . 35 per cen _ t :â€¢. of : the tooa eco. in . any bale 1s classified as . wrapper tobac~, the whole b~l tt . 1S aaa~.eae at . th , e rate for â€¢~a pper tob a.cco. As was stat eq. !n part . II . a bale . of t~bacco w . eighs about _ eighty pO'W'.lds. Ina ' smuch as ~he import , .... . . . . . . . ' . .

PAGE 69

. . . . . ' j \ . ' . . , THE l'MPOBTAiCE QF THE CIGAR . lJDUSTBY : TO iJ.â€¢P A i , . . ' l .. . . .. . . .. .. 5'7 . . . rate for ~rapper . tobao . o~ 111 11~20 . . p~ r .. ;or over f.our . tiMe ~a high _ as _ the r~te r.or ~Iller tobac~o; . :t _ h1a â€¢~pears. ~o lie a ~. .-â€¢ drastic prov!aion ln the law. Tmis, 1r .0 per ..-,ent . ot a bale . .. were clasa1::r1ed u wrapi>,e:r ~oba _ cco by . the a.pprai-aer, . the . import. : er would have . to par, 100 per cent . wrapper . du~y ot;i ' the wholeâ€¢ . ; . : 'l!hib has resulted in am.exoeasite duties . being pa!d~ .. and bu ~ :: been the source ot lk8dJ' . . . . ~. -.. .. ~â€¢ manut:acture~ ot hmpa have objected to t~e inc r ea.1~ !: . percentage ot leave.a claaa1t1~ as wrappers .. 'l'lle,Qontend that . the leav~a used u wrappera tor 5 cent cigars 1sre not ~0111~ . wrappers and that o ro1al wrap~ra lised .onJ.y1n the wrappllig ' 'â€¢ ' .. . .. . . ... of higher grad~ cfgars st,o,1]~ . be : c~assifiâ€¢d as wrapper tobaooo. . U riited -. Statea _ ouatn;;;a ott ioiala at Ta,,rpa point . out in . reply to . . this objection that p11rtig~apb . 602 \ ot the Tar1.t.f Act ot . 19~0 de . ~ , fines tne . tel'ID . w:.-11.pper tobac co" . aa tollow.1 . : . . .. ")ii, ., 1 1 -..... 1 .,. I I ' . . .. . "The . â€¢ffl..pper : tobacco' ' ... uo~ in thi:a .. t~tle . m:eana tha t . . quality ot le~ tobacc o micb has the reqi.i 1&,f . te color; tt 1 . , and burn. and la . ot . autt~cient ai ze tor ~igar w:rappera. ( : . _ . . .. .. . . . .. . . ... . . . .. . . ' ... . ; .... . . . ~-.,~ l, .. . ... . . . . . . . . . Other prob1Mi8 met . with . in connection . n tb clas . ~ificatlan _ of Ouban . tobacco . h:ave to with . the me~hoda . o.r appra1sal aml assessment or ~tiea . ,i,i the tendency o _ .t this clasa1:f'1cat1on Co varyw1de~J" as between ~vid11~l. c~atana inspectors . '!h,en wrap. . per find filler leaves are mixed in shipne~t, a custC'ms appra ill er needs t~ inspect . ~11 the lâ€¢avea fii . a . bal~ . tor an . accurate â€¢-~i~alâ€¢ . Aotual . 17, he has tiâ€¢ e . to exaalne . onl7. a t~ . 9.f the 16,000 leaves the bale couta1na. Caaes _ have been tound or,-ar1a~10bl 1n: the oplp1ona ot . c11,i tn,~.. appra1ae;r1t as to the , percentage of . p~I's . found 1n a bale. In ~e instance, t,au.r ~Uterent . app:riliâ€¢e:ra found 35 per cent, 60 per cent . 7~ per c~t â€¢nd 96 per cent u I the proportio~ . or 1rN.ppe~ ~ in tlie saij,e bale. . , Unde~ ~he adminbtrat . ion ot tile exiat1llg law., n~v . ei. know . 1n ad Wita ce . what thair dutiea n . 11 be~ as that depend~ on . the individual .. . judgiiiAnt o~ the appra ia er in the custon;a service as to . tl'ie _ perâ€¢ .. centag~ ot wrapper . ard ti~ler . p1:eaent. J;Jeoauae the wrap~r . S. subject to o'ter _ t011.r. t1n4 _ il tlle dug o~ tillerâ€¢ . the : :tinano 1a1 b ur. . d~n ot . in111cla111itic&tion i:a cioatly . : Tab1ea 48 and 19 . show the general tar1.f .f rates on tobac. . imports and . the ratea (?n Cuban tol)~cco . as modi:tied b7 , treatiu .. and trade agroemer..ta. Sil;lo e 1~03 Cuban trade ~ w1 tp the Uni tel. States . baa been aub ject to a pref~rent . 1ai rate 80 pe r c~lit lower than 1mi>o;rta f'rctâ€¢I other toreign coun~r-iea . ,. Since ~ 19~ , ee,rta ln . . tariff reclLLott011e have come as a result n:t . the ~de Agreemen t s Program. . Su _ ch dutj r.eductione . are exe~lifi~d . bJ : the .. Cub~ tra"e _. Agreaxrmnt 1n e:r~ect ~â€¢ Sept~,.jh,.r, . 19:5â€¢ t~ Jla~h, ;:L9:56 and tlle . Netherlanda Trade A.gr.cement . of 1~35~ Aa . an app11cat1on of tM . uncond~t1onal _ most-.tayored-nation _ policy now being .tol lo~ the United State~. the , :reductiona gran~ed the Netherl.ands . on matrd'. and . Java ;a~appera were aut011.atica117 extended to inclui!e . ~ban . wrapper tobacco. As cen -be seen . b-Oll Table 49, the ~uent duties per: p ount on tobacco 1mp~ted Cuba are: s . t d ~apper .11 ~ 72 ; 11naten,11;a.-d . â€¢râ€¢pper, l . l_.~20, . _ st d t.1i _ le~, IQ.to, . nnsteâ€¢â€¢~11aed tt11er and a crap~ . . to.~. :. . _:. _ . _. .. . 40 ; . . ' . .. . . . . . . . , .. . . 3 Advan f, agea ot '9anapa For . Cigar Jia.ni1tact~ring. _ . .. , . . . ' . ... .. .. -:rbe range ot tempe~t:ure and ~d1tx.at 'J'a1x;,a is __ quite eimi. . . lar t . o that ~t ltey w,at and . He.varaa. Iri oZ'der to work t9bacoo eat ~ 1 . e~actor1ly the average 1;e1,,pe:i-ature .. must not be too _ low o ~ too high . . . . ' . .. . ..â€¢ l . . ,ar:1::tt Act o~ 1930 ~ Pai-agraph 602. Printing ortlc~ laahington. . _ . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . United States Goveraitent â€¢' ' . . . .â€¢ . . , . . , ' . I

PAGE 70

. . . . \ . . . . .. . . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY. OF TAMPA , FLORID~ . ' ' . . ' . . â€¢, . . . . . . . . ,. . . ... Extremes of high and l~â€¢ hum1d:1 : 1;y . , aN. equally 11ndes~r~bleâ€¢ In the 'I'amp _ a d~str1c:t c11ma:t i c . c~nd1 t1o~~ are , sue~ i?hat a~r ~condition1ng of hand .tact ories is unnece~sary. In nor~hern factories . t}le _air. condi , tioning . is essential, requ.1r~ng an added 1nvestment and _ ex: .: penditure. ;:3u~f1cJ .' ent experiment~tion w,-th a1r~cc;,~1:t1 . oning in ' . . _. T empa . has not b eert ms . de to provide a m9re detailed a _ nalysis. How. .' .. . ~ver, 1 ~ 1 . ~ _ c . ontended . 1Jlan7 n;a~urac~urers that air ... concl1 t~o . n1ng 1_r111 be . needed ~n Tampa ror machine prQdue~ion if mechanization . prQc eed.s tar. B&cause of Tsi,ipa' s ~ : sui t able climate some nort~ern c1g~r . ~ompanies ha~e . the . il' . Oub~ tobac-co ~ shipp~d to . this city _ inst _ ead . .. . . of New York, . and ~tored pend~ng the ~eed. for . ~ t. . _ -, _ A repr~sen~ative of ... the Uni tad States we9:ther , bureau re p~rts: . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . " . . . l . "At . Tmnpa ~he Q.ver , age te!llperature :range frcm1 .. the cold.est to t . he warmest month is o~y 20 degrees whereas . the , range ia 44 de grees . at Boston, . deg~~es a . t Cbicago ~nd 69 degrees ~t St. . P au:i~"{J.) , : . . . .. .. , . . .. > . . . . . A . combination of r~iiroads, ' t~~k .' lines, steamship 11~ee and . . airlines ~kes ee . onomical and rapid trans pqrta t1on available . from T~pa to a 11 part.a of North Altlerica ~d the Caribbean. = The ,in. manu:factured tobacco can be brought in easily from Cu'Qa and the finished. . cigars diatr _ ibut . ed throughout th~ United Stat . es. . From .. . . the standpoint , of transportation . facilities, the cigap ~dustrr . _ , . . is ~pre strategic ally loc ated fc,r: J?lBnu:facture . am d1 . stribut1on . . _: . at Tampa than . at Havana or . Key West. . . . . . : ' Tampa ha s a n advantage in a co~t of 11: ,ing, which is much . > lowe . r than in northern produc 1ng ce~tera. Bec ause of this, wages ~n Tampa . ve a gl' . e~ ter I?U:t'C~s1.hg . p ow~r . than in . ~he , nortll,. , Mq ney . . . wages . in Tantpa might be lower . ~h:an .. in the no~th but real . wages are higherâ€¢ , . : .. . . . . . . . . . .. Th.a w 1 ~lingne , ss of Cuban ciga~tuakers t o transf &r to Tampa ,from Cuba and Key W _ est was .: nec essary for the establishment e>f . the cigar ind1.1stry at the f9rmer . place. Emigration was ." encoUJ'&.g~d by " the . . copstru~tion o r attract1v~ , coDltllUD4ties, fii-st 9:t Yb , or City and later i4 W~st . Tampa .. Attempts w:ere made . to star:t . a ." thix-d c ' igar . __ producti_ori center . at Port Tampa~ but ~lle~e . failed _ c;tiiefly _ because. . . of lack o . f . clubs . and .. amusement fac . i~ it ie~ . ., w~ic;h have :made up . t'.lle social life of the . Lat~n wqrkers. ~ _ ere has been en ample supply . of c1gar1118ke~s in Ta:~e. ever ~ince t:tte early . developme?tt of _ th,e . industry. . . . . . . . _ ,.. With the passage of the :, llorriso:n . Act of 1883, a diff~~ential for th~ impo~tation of unmanuf . actu.red tobacco over the importation of an equal we +ght of finished cigars wa . s mad~ , ao as to :: favor the Am~rican manufa:cture o:f Hav~ cigars. Thi:3 d11'f~rentia1 has â€¢. continued . to encoura ge the importation of unmam1factured t ob~eeo and . to discourage the . importation or eigars : . The r~~es of the . tariff . duties _ on unmanufac tured tobaeco hav . e peen given ui this a.ection of the R epor't. . _ . . : . . , The ci tiz~ns of T~mpe. ~nvested in the . ci g ar industry as a . . me a.ns . of apeQq.ing up tp.e econpnJ1c " devel . opmen~ o~ t}?.e . city. Subsi, . . . . di e . s of cash, l ; and a.nd build~ngs . wer~ offered to plB:llts wbioh c . sme to Tampa . .. Citiz~ns of Tampa _ , ~:usine~s _ men, land a~d de,r~lQpment _ . . companies and other . in _ ter~s te~ _ gr(?ups ~elped to furnish the ~ap1 tal for t~e compani~s at4 get them st . ar~ed .. , For their part the Qigar manuf~ctur~r~ contracted t~ prod~ce a given quantity of cigars and employ : a stipulated ~umb . er o f . persqns . .. This agreement was des 1gned . to ine'd+'e . th _ e maintenanc e : o:f _ . a payro . ~l wb+ch would strengthen . pur _ e ~ as ing . powe~ . the ' c 1 ty. : . , . . . . For e . ~ample, in . the case . 9f __ lo~ating }4,. . S tachel:t>erg and Gom . . p a.ny in Tampa ~ri 1902 , . the . ract()ry . s 1 te was . donated and the c1 t~ . izens subscribe : to $10,000 . 1n . c~p11;al . stoc k . This :tirin _: bu:ilt . a . . . . . . . -----------: .. . ' . . \ .. 1~ Comi,1en.t on the Climate of Ta1'fpa by '! . W . 'ralbott , , . Unite~ ~ . . . . stat . es Weather Bureau : Office, T s . mpa, Fl9~ida Chamber of C c;>ucn1erce Bulle . tin, _ 1939. . .,_ . . . I . .. .. . . . . PAGE 71 ' . , ' , . . . . . . .. . THE râ€¢POB1ANCE oF THE CIGAR 11'DUSTB1 'I() TAâ€¢P A ; . . l ' . . . . " . . l . . I t . . .. -... ' ' . 59 . factory 001t1Dg ta:>,QOO de1 1ped to . . .. 800 worker~. . . ...~ . : To~7 t~e iaaue .tac . -~â€¢ e.~gar Sndl 1 â€¢trJ' or i,a Ulie ma1n tenance . ot , _ tl,\te lo~ll.... aa a pen anent o'-.ga:n c~nter. 1,ta1nment or such a _ p~eltion . will . râ€¢~re th~ ~ . t caref:u1 attentlo~ t . o . . three :tac tOl'e 11ti1:oh ere aocu.l.eoc,ncmto â€¢rid . civfi 1n their â€¢t1,re. . . . . . . .. . . The . sQcia . l problem 1~ concerned th trade . ,in1 on . poller Th.e ,: . large?' por~ion ~r ~paâ€¢a : ~IYJue~~ i;~~~ a ~ . loaed allop . .. . agreement with the i1ni01 1 e . Thia ie true o~ no other m~ jo;r , e~ cente~ in t~e United ~ statea. . Jnaohr aa . Tampa of gar i 1 n:tox1a ez&râ€¢ . ci _ se a g~eat 1:ntluence ov.,r ~ rates theJ' . hol4 a nap~ wlit,ob . .: : can be u:aed. to injur~ in a 1 1 â€¢nner . Ja r ~o the ter~.t.t. U trade .. ' un1 ons are to help build a prosp&ro-.a . c 1ge:P : , nduatry at Tainpaâ€¢ . r. 1~ is essent1al tbat th:e7 . t~ principles o, pric~l[I and tWr. . . . , . behavior in the ral91cet . , . end 1 iJre~ae , , the ~lation . ~ . â€¢ages t;o prices . : . . . . , . . . :, . . . . . . , . ' . The ecoo1110 proble 11 1 . deala . ntll Tobacco tnaatrtea .. . have ~lwal'il . bc,~e a h~v,11barâ€¢ 1n prdvidlng r.â€¢~n 1 e tor go~~ mental opera t1~n. : As long aa . the ~1ga r !ndu~tn,: .races deol lrd llS df\'1&n4 . there ~ : de.nger or . all91d.ng f!bA ta~ . burd~ . to becn;;wt 4'oo . heaV7.: . â€¢t t _ he preoent t1~.,,, all di~alar,a ot _ gov,:r,,,,,.n~, : . atate : '1nd local, ere a~h~ tra?1tfc;,ally :tor . new revenue : If the tax 1~ . incrf'aaed on cigara .. 1t 1'111 _. teaa.d to haaten t}l:e p; ~: . sent trend tO'itr&rd shrinkage ot li~>ctioii. . : .. The c1rtc problem aoac eiax1e ~he att . 1tude ot the people or Tampa t oward the , cig~ 1 radu&~rJ'. . When the people or Tampa ahoâ€¢ en . . ~ntelligent ,1nderatand tng ot. the problâ€¢~ ot th~ cigar ~nd .,fllld a high d~~â€¢e ot coopere.tion in â€¢~a1at1.ng lt in obangillg tra41~1on.: . ' al methods ' and nlOde,~i1tS1ng, the 1nd1 1 a~1a1 . p~gNaa _ ot the ocamm. . ity will ; be greatly aid.ed . The ild9aJice1k8nt of thea~ . objecti~a ia a step . toUrd. a more p~ape,~~ -. c1ga:r 1JJ~>atr,. While their at~~. ment cannot ~â€¢ -rapid, . they can be ac~01pliah~ grad,,ally. . . ', I ;, â€¢~ ._ I ' . . . . . . . . .. _. 'It ._ I 4 . The Pr 01;1-. of Unsi;q;iloyment in u. Cigar Lid11a tri ot Ta]p .. ,4, . . . ' The position oi the Qig&r in~atry . as .. the cb1â€¢:t source or pr1 ;.. mery purqhasing ~â€¢er 1D 'l~ni,a ria ~s ~â€¢t1>l.c,5aeu~ in this ~ _ .idi,atr, . of major importance to . the c;ity. Res~oratiQJ!i ot . "'891>lo3ment ~ dis plac~d: cigar . wc;,rkera . conat:ttutea the logical f'~rst step to retuo-tion ot . 11nemploye-8nt . 1n other chann1tla , . . Prerequiaite to atiah restorat1on . 1a ari increaae 1n act1v1 ty in Tampa c . igar . tactor-1ea. I. . r .such a re-~''s , ~en 1; rr_,, . wer . e reported _. a-,s un-.,loyed by tfte census report. ~ with :the actua~ total probably high~. In ~he census r~port to~ 19:SO, 11,~48 ' workers . ._ listed aa pin~ .... fully ~mployed in the c _ :lgar 1~atr,~ which r~pream,t~ 25 per cent . of the _ gaJnt;-,):l 17 en,ploj'ed persona ~ Taa,p,i. Th1a 1930 cens~ re. . port stated that .,1 per cent or the .. 1,inâ€¢ploy;.119nt ~t Tampa. at lbat date was in the cigar 1â€¢.di1a trJ'â€¢ T!ita 1n o ontraa~ nth tha tact that . only 25 per cent of e11ployment in . Tam_pa. at .. that tinw, aae in . this industry, ~nd 88f'Dl8 . to 1Df:21cat e ~bat ,irv,ccpl()JJllent among oisar . ' . workers . waa c~nâ€¢iderablv bl~~er . tban ln the . oth~r industries ln T . ., : . . . amp a. . . . . _ . . . .. . . â€¢. .. I A . conservative . est:tmat~, ba.sed on reported t . 1~e~ all major T'ai,ipa . cigar tactor1e . s, ahon ~he prea~nt . n1nnber ot gP1nt\Jl17 emp~o:y-ed 9 1g~r ,ror~~rs 1n . TenqA to be 7~500 . . 'l'hia 1a a reduo\1911 of 4,'248 from the 11, 749 report e4 as beiJig e,11,loyed _ in tho .. Tu!Pa . P . lanta 1n ~930 : . . It is . esbJ1111Ated . that . there ar119 in ~n,pa â€¢t tbe .. P:eaent . t1n)e . appro~1mate~ 4,CM>Q clgar workers n~t 811lplOJâ€¢~ la~â€¢ c ig ar plants, altbo1igb a part o.t t~eae ere on _ ;relie.t. Addin;g tb1 a I '~ l . ' ' . . . . . . " . .. .. .. . . PAGE 72 . ' . I . . . eo THt CIGAR IN!)USTRY OF TAJIPA~ FLORIDA 'â€¢ ' . I . . . . . . . . I n,Jmbe r to thoâ€¢e employed. in _ tb'.e plants,. th~re are approx1matel.J' ll, 500 cigar workers in Tampa at the pr. eseni; t~e. . , _\ . . Since 1930 de . cline _ 1n d8Daand for c 1gars and other causes bave ' . thus :. ertect(;td displacenient of ~ver 4,000 . cigar work~r.a . in th, Tam pa 'industry. ~~se person~ . have shifted to some ~t~r ~duâ€¢t?T or have beâ€¢n dr~pped fro~ the _ payrolls of cigar f'irliâ€¢S ~o . become part o _ f t~e 1.memployed. A numbe~ . or these pe~sons .. are older people . ~o .. , have . spent .. a good part . Qf their :11 ves 1~ cigax-,nak:1.ng, but many ... repr~aent Y9'lll8 men and women who hav:e _ . not . be~n absorbed l;>j' the c~gar indus tn. Of 1 the two group~ the _ '. older . persons are worse otr, . as transfer to new occupations .18 ' e,aQier for young pe~sona than . _. old~~ on~s. Some , -0f . : these older eig&.rtn$kers have started small o~~-man shops . in their homes or in cheap -quarters . tor Jb&king _ ancJ s . elling cigars. Thee~ are kno~.i.1 as " : buckeye~.~ The . ~ are about eeventy . of them 1n Tsn1pa . . . . : ' . The Tampa c igarn,ak~s , . ,1uion~ have . followed a policy of spread . . 1ng the work, ill an $t1:;empt . to _ lesl!en the . effects of unemplC,tiae:t.t . in . the cigar. indu _ st:J.'7â€¢ As : . soo:n . as , 1 t is neqessa:r:y . fo~ a ci~r ,,enu . .. : f'acturing plant : to redu ce 1 ts . produet1on, instead or . dis~h&rging workers, . j:;he plant . operate s .. a .small~r n,~rnber or days with its full fore~. This 1s . pePhaps just1f1aple as a tempor11ry . measure, but should hot . be considered . as a pertt,a11ent policy. It is ,~nfair to bc;>th workers . ~ _ nd .e _ mp _ loyer.s , in redU:cing the wag~s of the former, and . add~ng to tpe ~ ove~head ~oa,ts -of the latter. . . .. . . Te~porar-y agenc1es organized :to deal wit~ unemployment must __.. be qi'f'f er _ entiated froin pe:,rmanen~ measures t~e~ t~ abolish 1 . t. . Many Federal agencies have developed which ha ve been . considered . .. u&U:ally a~ temporaryme ans of. handling une1,1plo3me~t. Bef'ore ~ -: . rev1~â€¢ of the . wor~ being done . by th~se agencies is mad~, it 18 desiral;>le . to po 1nt out that _ th _ e ultimate solution _: or cigar rmepi plo:yment will neces . sarily f . 0 11ow one or both of two channels. One . poss : 1bil1ty is . the _ revival of dAmsnd foxcigar . woi-kers . through a . _ . g~neral rehabilitat . ion o r . the ci . gar ~ndustcy. Another means -to ward the same . end is the introductio , n of new industries which will offer oppor . tuni ties t ' ti d1~placed workers. . .. . A _ F _ e ~eral . ag . ertcy des :i.gn~ tq a~sis . t in r~4,uc1ng 11nemployment ' . . of yoli.ng .. people between the ' ages of e1 ghteen ", and twent,~tive . 1a . the N ational : youth Adminis~rati _ on. Although _. started as a temp~ ~ary . expedient . for _ meeting prob . lams of Ul'.l&mp _ 1ay . ed young people, 1 t has pr ov~q of su.f:f ~eient ~e~it to . be extet1ded _ conti~ou&ly s ince 1933. . In . Tampa , , the NYA e,eeks to aeeiet 7oung people who are out of public school 9:txl . u11einployed tcward aele . otion of a vo. cation and acquis1 tion of . ~e neeessary .. px-eliminary training. At its }l:~adqua~t . er.s in Tampa, . 1oo E. LaFayette Street, t1;ie IYA . main . tains :vocational tra ining 1n shopcratts _ and home economies, an0. offer s . cont . inuation . clas~es in English~ arithmetic , geog)?aph7, ,. :_ p~nmanship, ~d ' civ1cs, . for persons needing tra1~1ng in the~e sub. jects. In addition:, ~pprent~ceships are p~ . ovide . d 1n p _ raeti. ce.l fi -. elds _ w1:th courses in library, , office, hosp ital and e;01,aâ€¢i~r. . cial trai n1 ng, as well as in c~rpentry_, br . 1 . ck a~d : _ s~one â€¢~rk, and oth~r types of . constructio~ training-. . . . _ Another NYA p~ o j ect for ' Hillsborough County is a school ot . mecl\anical inS't;;l'Uction . installed, at tbe old Sulphe~ Springs c.o .c. . Camp~ : It 1 s d~s igned to care tor 100 Florida boys whose parents . are on . relief . Ins~~ct1on 1s gl'"O'en . in wQodwork, shee _ t metal _ w ork, . auto me . ~anies, . rac;l:to a~d other eours~s. . .. _: . .. . . Another ' division o f . the National Youth Administrat 1on in Tam. . . . pa is the c . o . lleg~ a1d to young . people _ : attending the University of Tampa , the U:ii:i. vers .1 ty of ' Flol'i da !ind qthe'r . 1:1 tat e 8 choo ls . !xi . 1938-~9 ~bou~ 1,ooq young . pe(?ple . in FloriQB. benefi tted .from this . p~ogram of encouraging worthy students to c~nt 1nu . e t~&i _ r g~n . eral education. In addition; : ab out 3 ,500 high school . s . tudents were ~ I a:asi sted dU:J;'inS . the past year. . . . . _ . . . Other methods . tor aiding un$idployed . young people inc;LiJ.9-e the provision of work soh:olarships at the Universi . ty . of 'l'arrrpa and . con tinuation cla.ssea .. at th~ Henry W. Bre~ster Vo , cat1on~l S chool, ! . . â€¢. ' . , . . ., .. ' . . . ' .

PAGE 73

'. ' . . . .. . ' . THE Iâ€¢P O.RXANC~ Of 'fHE CIGA.R INDUSTRY TO TA.PA. ' . ' l . i:' " . . . ' . . ' . â€¢. .. part of the . . 'T~ Oft7 : Schoo~a . In ~e : Brewster ~~hool day alWl .. evening cla~ses ar~ maintained throughout JDQ8t : of the . ye~ 1n . . p rintingâ€¢ machine shop _ practi . ce, ~adio, . elt;tc . tr1c1ty, sheet meta.1 . .. f layout and dra~1ng; m111-c _ abinet work am : otner branches of ehop work. . The school also has a commeroial diviaion 1n which numer. .ous courses are : otre red 1ri bo _ okkeeping; shorth4ind, ~ypewr1t1q, , . of.flee . prao-tiQe and. .. other pr~ctical fiel~a . . .. . . . T.lie Works . Progress .Ad1â€¢d nietrati.on ia , the Federal as . ency de.. . s igned to ~ss:lst ~ 1 1nem.plo7ed older workers 1ri finding . a tempoNrJ means . ~r income or 1n ahi:tting to ne1r tield,J : ot . e~loyme;nt. Be. . c _ ent1y 1n Hillsborough County, the . WPA , baa spent tsoo,ooo peâ€¢ : . month or 16-000:,000 annally ~n prov1d1ng ~â€¢e~gency enq,loymant . on at _ reet ilupro . veâ€¢enta, building . construction and other of. ' p rojects. In . edd1t1on . ~ the WP.A e~eâ€¢>dit.ures , the district wel' f are board is aa.an,tn1 atering . over ,<>o<;> P~l:9 7ear . while tpe oounty r . e lief expen41tures are about 220,000 year. Thes e SW bri ng . the eat111et~ . anmwl cost ot . re~ie~ in Ta,,rpa to 17 . ;02;0!000 . A t . ~ea~t halt or . th1a ezptlns, is _ n~cesa~tat~ bycigar tine1DP . qy.. : . ment. , . . 1 . . The pO~a1b11$t1,' . o:r : the , ~1gar . in~try of Tat,ipa . taking steps , to mode,-,,1 the , ~aotories . and introduc~ 1mpr.oved ~ethods . use b'T conipe . titora lb ~ the norf.b _ is dii,cuss , ed 1n other. sections ot : t:b\tl . Rep~rt. It â€¢~oeaâ€¢tu:J, this would :tend to . a~lev.iate . some .. or tile . exis ttng lJDftllPlCJJJ"JJt a . .tter a period ori time, sur~1cient t.or ' tu . p lant.a . to pro.tit bJ" the m~t,rniza~ion. )Jcwever; it i s , n et ~ lieved: t:J]at tmt Tâ€¢Nâ€¢p& otga~ oo,npa _ ~eâ€¢ . can absorb a11 ~e . 11n~ .. , ployed cigar workers 1n .. to~ . li01~â€¢e . 7eara . . . .: A a~pp1â€¢,.,.~t to au~ etto~ w011~d ~onatat of introd1i1ctng new . -' industrin to ,-.,p â€¢~ch could ap~or'b th,ba 1 ance o.+ unentploJej. Si nce ~at . . or : th~ .. ~1nmaq,loy~ cigar â€¢~rk~ra are . Le.tip . by e~ction, :_: . . a special probl._ ia tacttd or . obta1n1ng industries wh.1ch would be adaptable _ to the qua:ties ot . t~e I.atin worker~# prticularly aa handicrattna~. . A Tampa ~uaineas man bas recently: become inter'-:. : ested in obt.1n1ng a n,unber ot : 1at1,1es I g&J8iilent plai,.ts tor T&IIPlâ€¢ H e has baaed bis ettorts in this . connection on th$ observation th at . , Latin . 1'0\r9An Jiave been ab1e ~o s;t,,1t~ : b!vm cigar,,,aking . ~C? , pants ; ma nufacture 1n an old ' cigar factory building : 1n West Ta ri: pa. . In . o rder to make this trana~er or employâ€¢,~ n1; to textileâ€¢, only thirty t o forty-five . ot preliminary ~ra.ining were necessaxâ€¢y . , :tt i . s th e opini . on ot' th1a btieineaa ma . n . that other g~rm6nt factories mi ght b . e in~ced , to locate in Taml)llâ€¢ .. . . It ia beli . eved tl,iat a : proape~s . ga1,ae~t . 1'1\ltine; ~ndustcy ~ght b e . establ1ahec1 1n the City-, . it tp.ese . initial efforts are sucoeas~ fu l. 1;,atin . . workera : are par t1oularl7 adaptable to this tjpe o~ work. _ . a n d the 11n0111ployment a 1 11ong th&-a ; might be reduQed substailtiall.7 by . an expansion or. tbia i:q4Uat17 1n . Tiuupa~ h.otJ]e~ possibility tor . T ampa wold aeer: 1 1 ~ be the canning in,;rustry, with plants using t he fruits and ~egetable ~ produced in oent~al Plor . 1da. ' ltaildi~ ra.fts . w:ti,1ch would . e11iabl e the . Ie:tin wor)cers to use . ~he1r ha1da . m d not :require much mamJa1 . strength Dilght be succes s:f'ully operat~d tn Tampa.t if th~ , ne~ess~1â€¢; . step~ wouid , be t~~n ~o btlng them here. , In Part VII . of this Report a suggestion :is offered that a ;u ban Qw-ter . be _. c~nstru.cted ~ Yb~r q1.ty. : Tl-1 : is could . be gesigne~ . . _. c o represent the .. ax-chite . c . ture . mode o.t llvi~, ... dress, and custoJ,,a . )f a . Cubm1 -Qity'. . Ar~~d this . center _ of attraction tdr ... touriattl a . .. â€¢. 3h opping and entertairutient cl1str.1ot cou1d be deteloped. . If suoceas. . ru 1, this plan . might give employment to m$n7 Lat~ns~ .' and ~enef l t . the vh ole q1qof ~a, by. bringing . 1n edd1t.1onal _ tourists. . .. . This proble,o . of Ta ,mpa' s \ine ~ :ployed 1 of: 1'hom ~o many are c i gar . _. ,. V' orkers; is ci vie$8 well as 1ndu$. trial .. Tlle _ citizens , or 1 av~ a r~spons1b1licy in this connection, as well ~s the ci _ g~ and > ther ~dt1strie . s. Etrorts to he . lp the situati~n by : eqcouraging the : i g ar companie . s to modernize their. . plants , providing facili.tiea ~or ; h e . ~raining . of unemployed workers, ~nd bringing new . 1 ndustr181 to ~a m pa , , are . measures t~ t . shQUld r . ecei ve th~ a tten:t1on and cooperi ti on c;,f ~v.eey Ta,,1,a .. c1t1~en. . . . . ,. .. . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . PAGE 74 . . '. .. .. : . .. . . . . \ .. . , . . . ' .. ' , .. . . : .. : \ .. .. .. . . ,. . . . . .. . . . . .. . ' . . .. . . . . . . , .â€¢ . .. . . ' .. . ' ... ' . . . . ' : . . . . . . ' ' \ . . . ' \ .. .. , . ' .. .. \ \ , I . .. PAGE 75 . . . . . . ,,. . ' . . . . .. .. . I .. , . Part VI : ' . ., I "' . . .. ' . . . OPERATING ti:SULTS OF . TAMPA CIGAR 'â€¢' . ... . , . . . ' . I . -~ . 1 Scope . of the . Inveat~gation I . . . . . ' . ' ' . . . ' , In this si-vey the complete . records of th e nineteen . e~aa, rcoa1p anies of Tampa ~ich .. a~ members of the . Tampa c 1gar Jlanufaon,rers 1 Association; . called . in the ~eport . tJ)e nam planta, were exa1:lned. These c~â€¢pan1.~ a . axe _ 10:rerred _ to as hand -plants, . al~ough a&WWal ot thElll have ~ in _ recent _ Tâ€¢&rs introduced in the~r plants ma chine or . aemimachine procesaea for part ot their C.lass A. production. . n. . ta . lly, . tney ~epreaent the old. hand cigar industry~r . Tampa . "be in vestigati~ . was c~ntered 1arg _ e-ly in the op . e~at1on 9f these plants, as they .. are . ~ving aore d1f'f1clil.t1e a . than the . o~er _ plants at . _ the p;resent t11t.S. The operations ot -. the Bavatampa . Cigar C~paJiJ were in~peoted, . and ~~ ae~d tor a po~1od . o~ 7ea~a _ conc6rning theae.The Havatampa C:fgar . Coapany is eft,.cientl.y' ope1-ateq. and ia 1a a much better . econcin1c position . t},an ~ : e hand . plants of 'l'Ulp&-. l a in.forn.ation uas . gatbe;red rela~ive to the sx,aa1 1 ~epeJ)dent c1gar . companies ot . . . . : . . . :. : For ~e ~poae o~ ascertaining the re~ulta ot operat~ctae ot the Taâ€¢rrpa band pl~uta, au inapect ~on ~d ana).7ai~ or ~e1:r xa e orda was made tor . each 7ear back ~o . the middle Qr ~~ 4eoade or ttie .. 1920 . ~s. The Tampa ham cigar ~ndustr; was pr-oap~r.ous during this decade, and 1 t uaa felt tba ~ t . 8: comparison o,r ~e results of t.b.1a . period with la~er opbrat~ona might be adv:entageoua. Hence_ tile inve atigation atar~ed , with : the year 1926 and included . each J:UI' . t~ough 1938 . . Saile dat~ . uere gathered _ for. : tbe tlr~t a~ mont.ha , . . of 1939, bt cmâ€¢â€¢plete . data 9onc&rning operat,ons . were not ava.11abl~ fop th~a : per1 . ~ . . All 'or _ the xecords . . of ea~h ha1d cigar . oompe.07 :_ were inapeoted. These included . pr~ct1on r~oords ~nd int61â€¢nal ;revenue bpoka, coat records of a11 1c1D1a, payroll b ooka, sales records , . price 1u , 11, . etc . It likewis~ ine . luded complete t:\ . naricial records or each . pany. The annual certJ.t:t _ ed a ta teJD8nt & ot aud i tors were made avail able for each _ c~â€¢â€¢p&ey b--.ck to 1925 . These . ar:>Jl\lAl auditors ' . state ment~ we _ re caref'ull7 anal , yzed, to .<1et&~â€¢â€¢ne . the real condition ot t h e . cigar companies. . .. . . . . .. __ The . reeords of some ot . the band cigar plants . ot .. Tampa &Ia not ... kept as ~~.f1c ientl7 a~ . they . ~hoti.ld ' be ~ D1fficul cy _ was e~oo 1 1 ntered i n get . ting det~iled ' coat and exp~nse tigul'es in s ome pla.nts, par. ticularly . .for pa~t 7eere . ~ayroll and production rec;or.ds . are itot as co~plete _ as .they _ should be in so, ~ . :J>:Lants. There ~ a . ro61 tor co~siderable improvement in the account 1ng records of many or t~ compe.n1e s . . . . . . It i s bel~eyed tba t _ the da~a gatbe~~d tJ-om the ~ Tampa pl _ â€¢nts a:t e quite _ rel ial>~e and. cona1de:r1ng the poss1b1 . lity o.f a _ margin . o~ erro~, tbe figures presented in _ th~ Report are cc,11ect. It is tel . t .that thie part . or _ the survey included a sufficiently tho:rough check on the operati(?ns o .f the .. cigar cQinpanies Qt 1â€¢ to pei;â€¢mit a~ authen~ic appratsal o.f these, and to ju stify . c&rtain reco11011andationa as t . o . the solutiori of some or . the p~db;I. . ema. In confora,a1 ty with ethical pra _ ct1c e . , no _. 1nfoxâ€¢,r,e tion conoern i ng _ the op~ratiorâ€¢a 9.f -' an7 . individual plant, 1i'her.e it is possible to identify the plant, wi ~ l be . given .... C~ttlpos1 t ' e totals . ii;,.clliding ope.rating reaul ta . f'.rom all the plants . , . or gro'Ups o.f tha,. _ are . shownâ€¢ . . . . . . . . .. .. ' This pa rt o.f the Repor t ~111 deai l~ge _ lf with atatistioal tables showlng re sults or v~rlo11s operations of the plants. w1 th an analysts . o.f , each. General . infor,x1a tio~ . conc e111i?).g ~e T~ compa~les tid their problems has be . en given . in pr~ceding s_ections, so w l.s ll not be included in this one. : . . . . . . .. . , ,. I ' ,, , ' 63 , . . ' . . . ,, .â€¢ . ' . . .â€¢ .. . .. . .. PAGE 76 . .. . . ' t . . . . . . . . . : THE CIGAR INDUSTRY Oi' TAâ€¢P~ . FLORID~ ., . 64 ' ... . â€¢, . . . ,â€¢ .. . . . : . .. . . . . . . . . . A : ltat ot the . . nineteen ~1npa bend cigar > plants, . which are members ot the Tanipa 0 . 1gar . Jlanutaoturers Asi,oc1â€¢t1on. 1a given in Table 60, wh~~ . the oompan1 es are mown olaaeitied abco~ , 1ng to types ot . tobac co ua,d. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . # . 2 . "Th~ CigarIndu~try o _ t FloJ'ida . . .. . . . ._ . In this . survey of the TeD1p&. : cigal' industryit was c1111~:lderdd advi$able to . 1nvest~gate t l te industry 1n the entire state, . to show .. the position of Tampa: relative to that of the St ate of Flor1da. All!lost all of the _ important cigar plants in Florida, ~ts1de Q _ t Tampa~ are m,a~~1ne plants . Of . t~ese~ _ John B. : ~wish'er _ and . Son, Inc~ , 1:n Jac;icsonrllle, . 1 ~ _ the 01,1.tste.n di~ . plant in the state. Because _ ot the importance _ of t~s plant in the O\ltput of the ~t1onal cigar .. 1ndustry . it w111 be ctescribed . briefly. . .. . . . The Swisher c ompany ~v-ed :fr . om New~rk. Ohio to Jacksonville ~n 1923, being . in . tliie year a very s?Qa:ll f.i~. . . At . ~l;iis time cigar ma . . chine~ were just beginning t _ o :t>e _ operated ~n . a practical _ armer . The .. oompany acq~ired rnach ines fQr its operations and centered ~:ts p~oduct 1on oh a _ 5 ~ent cigar, . the King Edward.Sales or . th.i's ciâ€¢ . gar increased rapiq.ly, :, t he compan7' s _ .. produc~io~ being around 100,000, . 000 a nnually _ , from 1926 t _ o 1953. C , igar con11-pt1on dropped aharp . 1y . ~n the -depreas ion and _ the selling price o . r. tne Ktng atwa:r:td e:igar Was reduced , iio 2 ror .. 6 ce _ nts. Sales then picked . up so rapid~ . . ly that new _ me . chiners 8lld _ enlarged .' factory space . were requ~red , and the _ working to~ce . increased to twc;, shifts~ In _ :J.933 production ex. ceeded that of 19~2 by 40 per , cent, 11}).ile . in 1934 t~~~e â€¢a~ a . 6'7 . pe cent . g~in 9ver 1933, with a pr~~ction exeeeding one m11119n c~g~rs daily _ . This . producti on in a plant area of ao.ooo square feet made the ~01,1pany . _ the . mo ' st productive c1g~r plant 1~ the . world. was tollow~d by' . a : gain
PAGE 77

' j " ,. ' ' . ' . ' Of RRATINC RRSULTS OF Tl.PA CICJR fLANTS ' . . . ' . . ' .. . ' ' ' . . , . . 66 : ' . , ' . a~tisf-1.ed. The plant 111 non-union . * , : â€¢. S1,,aller Jacksonville plants include Gomales ~d Sanches .com-. \ p a~y, Incâ€¢ , owned by t _ ;tie : Cue~ ta~Rey and C~pany . 9t . Ta1apa, an4 thâ€¢ . H . a. White Cig~r Company, Inc. The Oonzale:s and Sa~ohez Coa;>1n7 started in . Jac~onville in ~~1 . and fo~ mant' years . ..... ~ ~id _ -~. p iant . It now use~ aut"8t.i o ~ob1~ea and t~ biuic~ing .. â€¢~c~1nâ€¢ ... arid hand-roiled process. The H. , s . . 1lhi te . Comperiy 11â€¢nutactui-ea en. t ~r~ly by the a,ito11â€¢t1c machine. _ The . most 1mpo~-'1?lt or the _ Qmnc7 _ .â€¢ ' p lants !s the .. Higdon C lgar Compe1xy, Inc., which uaea West Plos1da' t obacco . in 1 ts , operations. . Several or the . Mtami atld we,1 .. . p lants ~e . ot some iJDporta.nc~ : .. .'.. . .. .. . Bec~us e. _ oE ~he la;rge -prod:~ction of the . S~isher Co,,apal1'1', kc~~ s onvi lle . ranka flrc, _ t anae,ng . t he ci ti u or . Flol'-ids. in . total .. miaber of cigars produced. Tampa, ~n ae~o)l!lt ~r the highe~ class..o'I c . i g ars produced, pays _ more revenue , and pr9(iuces the .. eecond_large at ni.,mber of o~ga:rs Qu~ncy rank~ next .in -c 1gar . pr~Qti on 1 , . which is chiefly with tobacc o grown in West . Florida ~ _, ~am1 1a n ex~ am~ng .' the c.1~ prodll~ing _ centers of Florida, tollowed bf Key . Wea t. 'l'hia last namâ€¢d ci~i, . Qnce the ha t ' i~nal leader 1n :the pas,_. . .. ~ au ction of . H&vana .. cigars.; now r~s as list .,ong -the iiroduclrlg . . . . 1 c enters or the state. . . . . = . In Table 51 there is show11 . the to . tai n,im'Qer of . ea t . abliehlllents ma nufacturing cigflrs; cigarettes, and . other tobacco products . bl ... F l o rida from 1915 1938. From this table it can be seen that the t ot~l ntlmoer o r tobac~o Jll&m?.facturing pl~nts in Florida hae cte c reased 385 ~ to 188, between . 1915 . and 1938. Ot . the total n1 ! m. b er, . almost au are cigar companies, . with . a very te1r mak111g cigar._ ette _ a .. numb,,r ot plants produciJlg miacellanec;,ua _ toba~c o producta it;i , l'lorida has . de cre.aaed auba . tantially . ~ 1noe 1915, '!lille th~ cigarette plants were riev . er . large in nu11t,-9r or important ~ --. . Table 52' . ahGwa the . location . ot cigar ~anpanies . i . n Plor14a 1n : . 1 9 39. According to this tabl . e ~ the te are n1neti eom~n1es 1il : : Tampa , e!g)iteen in 1te7 ,e-st, t"ive . 1n Jaqlc aonv111e, t en in atamf, an d four~ Quincy, wi~h a sm,aller riumber in other cit1ea 1n 11le st at~. Sa 1 1e or the cigar companie s ~1 ated are verf .. ~all and N""'.' . l atively . ,,n1.lllportan~ . . Table ~3 ' gives ~tat1~tics for the . larger cigar con,paniea in Flo rida, as gathel'ed . by the : cens~a . Bureau, ;the figl.'~s sho,r.illg . . th e cha:pges in each 9ensus year from 1890 1937-. As a n,nnber of small plants are n ot . included 1n . these census d ata, totals sh own . f or some . ~te111s ~J'e l)ot . niuch larg~~ than the pl11nta . . I alon e. From thii., tab~e it , is ~een that there _ were ll'JOre cigal' p l an ts ~ , n Flor . Ida in l919 than at any , g , ther per1qd, 28Q as c011Pâ€¢ 1â€¢ed .. w i th : fif'ty-one in 1'9!17. The largest . am01,nt of wagâ€¢~ waa pai . ~ la th ee~ plarita in 1927, this be _ ing ll.S,S23,000, as comp~red . 1'1:tla $6, 8 61, o~o paid ~n 1 93'7 . The nu~er or wage ea~nera . waa . SNâ€¢â€¢et . . _ in 1909, .. 1919, and 1929, . with over 12,000 workers, dr~pp1ng to 9 , 966 in 19 . S7. The greatea~ cost or m~teriais . waa in 1923 ariJ . 1 9 25~ . The 1957 ~oat or â€¢~te ~1als . is no:t ve'J!7 much below tbeae fi gures ., '!'he : value or the produc t wa, g"ateat 1n .. 1~29 , .. ntl;l .$4 1,087,000, aa .. c0111pa1 2 ad w1 th 124, 9'12, ooo ~n 1957. The value . . a d ded bJ' . manutacturing ~ was . likewise great~at in . 1929, b-eijig aba12 t . t wice as great as in 1~37. Thia table sh9Ws that the -value or = c ~g~ra produced . in Florida per wage earner arid pe~ unit or ma-.. r i ~l coat ~â€¢ dropped cona-iderablJ' 1n reeent J'eara .. In 1926 . if;be . v ~ue of '. pr~uct per wage ee:rner was ts.477 as compai-~ . w1th $2. _ 506 in 1937. In 1925 the \?a1ue of' product per uni t . ot ; aâ€¢terial eost waa 12.41 . as compared w1 th . fi.97 in 193'7. . . .. .. The total sal.ea of ciga~s -l.;n th:e State of Flo~ida, d . 1~1decl into the tive . reve~e 01assea, f.nd . the , pei-centa ge o~ eaoh or t:laeae to the, tot~l. tros,, 1920-1958, are . shown in Tablee 54 ,1.d . 55. ,1'011 th e ~e tables 1 t is seen that the . i;;otal . cigars : made in . Flori . da S:1a, c reased :rrom 513 . ,010 ,ooo 1n 1920 to 83~, 941,-000 .. in _ 1938.. .~â€¢ 1nc reased production o:r this tot~l in recent ye~ baa been caused larg~'l.y by the lnc~ ase i~ ms ~fue ~made, . C.las s . J.. oiga ra. The per c entage of ~lass A oigara ,. -: to : the . ~otal prod: 1;1~ : 1n Floridtl hlla increased fro11, 6 per . c&nt in 1920 to . 47 p , er cent 1n 1930 and . 84 ' . . ' . . . ' . . . ., . . ' . ' . 'â€¢ ' . ' ' ' . . ' ' ' PAGE 78 I 66 . . . . . . . THE Ci GAR INDUSTRY OF . TAIPA, FLOR IDA . . ~ ,r . . . . .,.. pe'r c~n,t in 1938 , While the higl;l.er c lasseS o f . cigars have deClined cqnsiderably, . the d ecline :1 . n c1a.ss C being . from 64 p~r cent . tn . 1~20 to 3a per . cent in 1930 , and 12 per . cent ~n 1938 . . . . . . . . 3 The C!gar Indus try of the Tampa Distri c t . . . . I . . . . _ Stat is t _ ics . .for the Internal ~eve~ue D!stri~ . t p . f Tampa in. . : c lude . all . the c J;g~ compani e . s , bt?:th machine ~d h~nd . , in t~e c 1 ~y , . ~nd . in addi t1on cigar plants in citie . s near Tampa. . Fi~e e for .. the . ~ampa thertAAn the nineteen hand _ pl.aii~s _ of TEnpa _ _ . _ : 'ral?lea . 56 and 57 show the cigars ~old i:r;i the Tamp9: district . each year .from 1929~1 . 9 38, . diviq.~d into classes; with the percenta ge of each class t o the total in each year. The . total ciga:rs .. . 3(?ld in . the dis trict in c l'eased fl;tom ~~7, 191,000 in 19 . 20 to 5 . 04,753,000 , in 1 9 29 _ , .from which point _ they declined to ' 3'74.627,000 : in 1938. . Most of t );l e ii!-crease was accounted fo , r by the Clasis A . c~ga~s, which s:p.owed . a very g r . eat increase, while . all . o~ the hi _ gh. er classes . decreased. _ The , p e rce n, tage of the total comprised by .. the . Clai:is A cigars increased from . 5 per ~ent 1rt 1920 to 36 per cent in 1930 an~ 65 p . er. c '. ent 1n 1938. At the same t . ime Clas fl . c cigars declined . rrom 61 per cent in 1920 to . 45 . per cent . in 1930 and 2Q per . cent . irt 19 . 38 , . w4ile t:t:ie other h i g her _ cle.s ses de clin~d even more sharply. . . . . . T~ble SB . compares the trend of sales ih the Tampa . dis tric~ \ . with that 1n Flo . rida : and the . United : Sta tea. Two ino ices have been prepared to show these trenda, ope b~sed on the year . 1920, an~ one . . ; o~ 192~, which ~ as t~e peak year . .for both tbe T~pa District and the . state. . Production ,-.n -' Tampa in 1920 _ was _ abnor1pelly low because o1 the. strike. ! Tbe fir~t . of these trends for th& --: Tampa District , based ~n 1920 , p~oquctiori, 1s ~pw~rd, ~eaching 221.6 i:r;i 1929, ~op ping to 128.2 in 1 9 33, . and r~s1ng . t9 164.5 in 1938. The t~end for ~iorida is . ,. somewhat d i; f feren~, being a gradual _ inc~ea.se wi . th no , . pea,ks .. valleys from 1920 to . 19-38;, }Yhe;n th e . index stood at . 163.J . , very close t . 9 the Tamp~ Di~trict in~ex. Production in tp.e United States . dr opped -rr om 1 9 20 1938, ha . v1,.ng an index o.r 63.6 in the latter year . . . . . Tn.e ~r~nd from . 192'9 to 193 8 . was downward .r o _ r the Tampa Dis' . . tric~, . this deolin~ goii:ig _ to __ 57 .8 in 1$33, and increasing to 74.2 . 1n 1938. This cl _ oe e1y paralleled national production; which dropped to 66.0 1n 1933, rising to '79~ 1 1:n . 1938. : However, production fo'l;' the florida District ' we.a e:r;iti rely q. . iff~rent. It likew . ise dec~e~s~4 . to 74.2 in .. 19 33, but since that y~ _ ar showed a ren;ierkable ~ncrease . to 13'7 .7 in 1 : 938 . The . rap td increase of ' the production of the Swisher Company, in Jacke , onifil:le, . accounted for this _ state trend. . In T . able 5 _ 9 . i~ showr1 the estjmated . payroll of all the plants in the . Tampa a.:r:-ea . each :ye'ar .from 1926 . 1938. In 1938 t-J : 1is pay. roll ~mounted to f5~883,000i wh \ tch . wa s . only 62.3 . per _ cent of what . . 1 t , was i;n 1926 1 T ~ e pay.roll peak 1n . the . industr y was in 1929; when . the tot~l was $10;96 . 8,000, about doubie t h at _ of 19p8. However, the . purchasing power ' of~ dollar in 1938 was con s iderably greater than . in 1 ~ 29~ \ Vhen the depres . eian star.tad the payroll declined to : ..$4,972,000 in . 1953, . ~ising spo?'adica.l~y from that year to _ 1 938. . . . Tl;l.ple 60 SQ. OW,Q . the number of . empl oyees in Tampa cl.gar . facto.ries, including ma~ine _ fac . tories, s-,parated _ as ~o men and w0111en, , in 1930 . and 1939. It is . ae ~n that in 19 30 th e '):'ampa c~ : gar fnd11stry employed 11,748 p~rsons, while in 1:939 this number . had de . c1~ned to . 6 ,997. ~s total is for the J.arge~ plants . j_n the Ta rn p a area~ . :rn cluding the . small, _ . i~d , ep . endent p lan~s, and . t h e ''b uckeye s '', 1 t is _ ~st . imated that 7 "--500 .w~~kers ._ are at pre~ent employed in T~mpa ci: g ar f _ actories. n\s ta.1?le . shows the p r~1:1ounce~ . trend t owapd th~ . e m ployment ot; wo m en. In 1 9 30 men .. co1:11pris e d 57 p er cent of . the cigar woI'kers, and womeri . 43 per ce ~ t~ whil.e ' in 1 9 39, women m ade . up _ 55 per cent and men 45 per cent, of th~ . tcitai workers "in t h e Tamp a ci g ar _ ,:nctustry . . .â€¢. . . . . . . ' .

PAGE 79

. . . . . OPERATTNG RESULTS OF TJtJl:B:A CIGAR PLANTS . . . . . . . . ' " ,.., .. . . . . . ,. . . 67 ' I . A considerati . on or cigar msnufac tu.ring ~ the:Tampa n1.trict . s ho ld include :the .. ac~1v1t1es of th~ . ~va~a_mp(l Cigar Company, whi ch for some y.:ears . has been the le ad1I;,.g producer . in Tampa. . _ This 9omp . any wa e . fo 11 nded by Mr. El~ Witt, .. a very e n terpr is il\g . ma rt, who came .. to Tampa in 1904 and . engaged in the . wholesale c11str1b ut ion 9~ c igars. In June : ; . 1918 . h;e st,arted' his own t~cto~ --in . _ T ampa . for man~.facturing c1g~rs. _ Ha~d metl:lods o~ product . ion were rollo~ d _ i _ n tn!S plant for sor,ae year~,. ~0th the . Span1~ };land ays t em and the mold method being used. 1111'. Witt was not satisfied w ith the 1ow prod.ctivity (md high labor cost or the hand method.a, and early . 1n 192~ installed ma~hines . in his . TQipa pl anti wl11oh . p roved 'yeryS'!-1,ccess:f'ul. When th~ Hava't;am:pa plant was ine . ehantsedâ€¢ a p oli _ cy was followed . or ~etaining the . old workers , -. msp;far aa this wa s possible . Iri oro$r to re tain as many as ~oss1ble, buna.b5ng m achines wi:t~ ?B~d rollers wer _ e _ put in ._ th:e _ plant . , along w1~h t he . . . au tomatic maclilnea. Some teams oi' .hand mold _ worke~s . .were kept;. . The Ha.vataJDl)a Company has~ daily output . at the pressnt t ime o f appro.ximate:J_y one-half million cigars, ltlost . ly . Clai!s A. A an . ,a ll p art or thes _ e are ~de ._ by , hand molds, . about one.-six~h ~th bunchin g maoh1nfts and ha!).d-rolling, and the rest on autQm~tic macblnes. These machi~s are . all of the . short .fi , l ler, two-operator . type, . sixty-two . of them beil':lg 1n us&, bâ€¢sid~s twenty-three bunch1~ ms c h i ~es with their. hand . . rolJ.e;ra. : The plant is operat~d . two e1gbth our shift a a day. . . . .. Th . ere . tlre almost 1,000 workers .. employed . in the ilavatam _ pa p~m t. A b out three-fourtiis of these a , r~ . â€¢omen, a ll machine ope_ratora being wom en. ~rtnual payroll . ave~ages ~bout t hree â€¢.fourths o.f a 11111 1: on dollars,with a weekly payroll of approximately$ 1s,ooo. T.he w a g es recei ve d 'Qy . t~es . e . w orkete are -'. satisf'ac~art ~ . being ~bove those . now received by the workers in the hand cigar plants o.f 'l'antl)lle The c o m pany . does . ~any thi1:1Bs to promote ti:ie . health, comfort and happine ss of the work , ers. The plant is non-un:J on. . , T-he ~vatampa plant 1s ef.f1e1ent;Ly oper&:te~ in ali dep artui.t-tnts . i?h e tobacco used in the cigars comes ~ tttly from domeati , c sources an d partly .fr~m . othe~ countries, t~e wrappera and b1n~e~s be11'g do mestic, ,m.d the filler a biend o.f domestic and Cuban tobacco, wi th ' solft~ from : Puerto . Ric . o ~ : . A ' car~.f'ul check on . ma te ;rials . is s.:1n t airied, every ounce o~ tobacco being weighed and . accounted tor. B esides being . used for cigarz, 1 !3k\ns; , ~od~rn machines ~re used t or .. s t ripping., . ce11ophen1ng. bending, stamping, .and punc~ _ ing . cigars~ E conomies of ~ny kinds have b . een installed in the plant, .. to reduce . . co sts. , . .. . . . . . Much attention has peen gi:ven by th~ company to . a~v . ertia!.ng'" the 87.penditure ~ for this exceeQ.1ng . t:ho~e of' all t:q.e harid cigar p lan t s of Tampa co m bined. This advert ising ijas been . effective, h e l p ing -. b~:1,ld up the c~pany 1 s bus~es s. It . 1~ outdoor ~dvenisipg m ostly, . but includes . sho~cases, ~indows, _ radio, et~., aJ'.ld stl'\21,g mi saioD&.ry work. . Th ' e concern ~s been .forttmate in having . the E l~ Witt company for ~ . an import . ant distri'Qu~ion out le~., . tMs aell. , i ng company makin g ~b.out halt: pf :tts sales. . . : . The Havatampa Ciga . r Conipany is an eJrample ot . a cigar p;Lant w h ich has put . mecp.a'nize~ improvements and . e.fficl . ~ncy 1n~o 1ta op era ~ions in ' a produci ng area where such a. pol:i.ey was not fa~red. ?-1}1 e suec , ess . of . this com p any is p roo , f qf the soundness of this pol1 cy . . . . . Ano . ther plan t ' in the Tampa D1:atr1ct , other than the . hand pJarlm, i s Thomps~n and Coll'.l~any, . Inc., of B~rtow .. This comp~y closed its han d factory in Tampa _ in 1936, . m(?ving it to Bartow wh~J'~ it m , combined with i ts . machine , plant es . tablished some y~are be.fore. Its se1l . 1ng . otf ice is still maintained in Tainpa. . This c . ompany 111 meet ing with very sa tisfac . tory . su~e , es s. It is one o.f the three 'raapa ci g ar companies using the _ m.ail . ord . er niethod of direct . saies . ~o consume~s, the Qtber two being J .w. Rob~rts and _. Son, ~nd the ;r. '!. Swann C _ ompe.ey . ( sales organ1~at.ion . for ~ope ~ ~ A~varez _ a~ Company). Besides the Tampa hand p lants ~hich . are mem b ers of the Tampa C ig ar Manut'a e. turers Assooi~tiO'n,' there are sever.al smal . l plaxits whi c h are o p eratin g in ' Tampa outs1de of this organi z ation~ and as .. .. ' .

PAGE 80

., ' . . . 68 , . ' . . . ' . . . . THE CIGAR INDus 111t OF tAâ€¢P~ ; FLORIDA . . . . . . .. .. . . . . ' . ' . . . I ' . . non-uniori p~arits . : The s,-vey .. _ did not . 1nv:estigate ~he se as _ fully as the ot~ers but general dat . a _ gathered . concerning t~em ind 1cates .. that . some are prospei:ous . and othors arf9 not. Included . -in this . . group is the Val M. A:ntuono taoto17 ; . one . of ' Tampa' a old,es t . c . igar : firms . . Numerous "buckeyes" . operate 1il Tampa . '?h,eee a~e co,,,poaed ot_ one cigi,.r,.,alcer with . posa1:blt eeveraJ._aa sist ants . and make Ci . gar~ by band in ; a small shop or in a bor,,e . . 'Phe1:r . outpu~ ~nd . et. feet o~ the -: indust cy are negligible. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4 Tampa . Cigar . Plants . Produc . tion arid Salesâ€¢ . . ' . . . .. . . . . As has been sta~df thia 8):Arv&y str~s sed the ~ problema = or ~he h . and . cigar plaints ot Ta,,,pa . which are more aer.1oils than any ot the ot~ers;oa:rrying the 1~vestiga~1oil or their operating r.eo~rds back to 192 . 6. . Data . concerr~1ng ~he prQdu~tion and s . l\les ~f . thes _ e pl a~ts toll ow. . . , . . . . In a~;J.jz 1ng . the , re su~ts ot op~r-.tions ot the Tampa hand ci. gar p _ lants 1 t , should be pointed .' CN.t :tba t these pl tnts are no~ ex actly h~oge.noous~ In the . c _ lasalfication given at th~ beginning . '( .. of this s~ction, it ._ was _ shc..w11 tba t the hand _ plants used different . . tJp~a of wrapper tobacco in . th~ 1r ~peratibnf! . ; som~ using Havana , and s011,e shade ~app . ers . . . The p~pc,ases used ~lso tend to vary. \ It . â€¢aa de,sired . to set ~P . cl;.asa1r10ation b~ae _ d on prooes-aes, but . 1t . was tc;nmd that t];i.ere were so m _ any . oomb1nat1ons of ' t~ese., . and de . gi-~ es o.f c~ng ~s in . the . l?rop ortio~ ~f . total _ outp~t ,;nade by eachâ€¢ . that . s uch a class1f1 . cat1on w0uld be ooi'-sing . rather t~an , enlight,. ening~ . . . . . . The . Tamp a hand c igar c on11>anies : v _ a ry . greatly ~n aize, th~ c~p-taltzation _ rangi~ fro~ t2s ,ooo .. to t4 ,ooo ,ooo tor. the ind~ v1a.ual plants, t-he net sales .from $;1.00, 000 to$2.000,0QO, the, . outp:ut . or cigars . f'ro~ 1, . 000 ,ooo to 35 ,ooo 1 000, . arid the n1imber of . emp1oyees . fr om 30 to 1, 000 1 '. _ Table 61 shows a cla~z,,1rica~1on ., or the . Tm 1 r.pa pi.ants accordtng : to capi ta _ l1zat1on, sales, cigars â€¢â€¢mifactured , . and emp~oyeea. It is seen tba~ .tour of tnese . oonipaniea ar~ veey . largeâ€¢ be1 . ng . cap _ ital ized at Jtore tban t . 1,000 .ooo , . and t .. have a p~p~~â€¢~!zation $500,000 and t~ ,000,000. _ Six of ~he co-.p9:nies have 11mall cap1tal iz4t1on; ranging from t2~,ooo~t100;000. ~ In sales .. and _ tot~ 1 ~1 gl!'ra . mariu.faQ ~ed : five ot t~e companies are . outsta'hding, having sales excee : ding fl~OOO~QOO and pr _ odci~ _ oTer . 20,~00,000 01gars. : TJ:irtte mqre Qompan1ee ha~ .. saleJ ~anging 15<>0,ooo-t1;0~0,ooo pr~ce 10, . ooq 1 000-20,ooo,ooo cigariJ . ~ . ~ea~ < same five co~anies have oveJ. . 500 employee a . wh11e . tour othera have :rro,,, 250-500. Sev~n or . the compari, es . make ~ales ranging . between t100 ~000-$25P ,o~o, ~nd produce ~,ooo,~s,ooo.ooq c~ . gara. Five ~omp~ _ ie~ have 30~100 . em.. . Plo ~ee s : ,1 . . . . . Thia . table shows that tnere is a vast di.fference in the si~e . . . . . . . ai:id operations of : the T&n1pa . compa~es, which :would hav~ a decided 1nflu~nce on their .. pol ici _ es . and probl91,1s o, production ., salea, an~ general nwna gem&nt. . . t t . is : seen t~t there is what inay b e te~er . of . . . . cqnsol1dat1o~ in the ~amps. ciga:r industry, not only for L1mal~ . , companiesâ€¢ b,it , of large ones 0: s . well; woul.d .' be , a.dvant ageo~~ for . the :r1v,,,,, and for the industry. . . , . . . .. Table .: 62 ahowa the ~ota 1 nun1ber . ~t cigars sold by these : plants . e~ch year :. , 1926 1938 .. It . is seen . th~t ~he production o.r.. the plants was . 230, 287 , O(?O 1n 1926 _ , fr(?D1 which . ~igu.re 1 t 1:,ncr . eased to a peak ot 30 9,55~,.000 in 1929 . It then de~line . ~ each ye~r to a . low of 180 1 142,000 in 1935 , fqllo1f$d l?J' . a gradual . incr~as . e to . . .. . 21s ,572 ,ooo in .. 1938, which 1s s1~ ght~y . less than in 1937 or . 1936. \ . .. ' . . ' . ., . . . . \ PAGE 81 , ' . , . OPERATIN , G RESUL . TS OF : TA.11.PA CIGA . R PLA.NTS . 69 . . . ' . . . .. . ' ! ' ' . . ' . . . . > â€¢. I , . . ... . . . ... . . .. . Us 1D.g 1926 aa . a base yearâ€¢ . the ea1ea climb'd : to . , . ui .. , . 1929 , , de~ clined to 78.2 in 1935, a~ increased . to .. 93.6 1n . 1938~ The l9S8 s ales are 69.9 pâ€¢r cent of . those in 1929. . . . . . . Tablea 63 And . 6.4 show . the division p:t sales into the . re~e clas . aes . each . year, 1926 1938, w 0 i th .. th~ . percentagâ€¢ of each â€¢o the . allllU&l to~al. These â€¢re veey s1gn1:tioant figures, as t:ney e~atn . what is perhaP.9 th~ moat. seri~a p~ . oblem . of the ' Tampa hand cigar ... industry, na 1 11el7, . the gr~at inc~ease â€¢_. in the C~ase A cigars encl the . decrease t~ : hSgher. claaaee dt~ring thi , e period. The sales of Class cigars increased flt"'91 : 21, 57~,000 to 94,Q,OOO durl~ this . period, or , . 4 1:1,,.es, repre,~ent1'lg 9.4 per cent . ot the tQtal 111 . 1926, and ~ ~8 per cen~ in 19~. Class = B percentage of total â€¢ales . also 1ncreued 2.~ tiuMAa, :t>elng 2.4 pe~ can~ ot the 1?,otal in 1926 . . and 5. 7 p,r cent in ~938. . The higher C1a~sea, C , ~, _ and B decreased correspond~nslTâ€¢ = Olâ€¢sa : C dropped .tre1,, ~7.9 pet' . ce"lt " to. 41.1 pe,r . . cent , Qlaaa D f'r~â€¢â€¢ 29~â€¢ . per . ce~t to 9.2 , p,r o~nt . , and . Ola~a B tra,,, o . s per cent to 0.1 per oent# . in the period. . . . : Proia these . tabl,a 1 t . oan . be seen that . whereas in 1926 aboll t nine-tentha . ot the product1 on o t ~hese plants was 1n the h1ghel' . . . gradea ot o1g~a at the _ present , t1uW5 only about hall . of 1 t 111 1n ... . thes e claasea. L the ha~d ~igar industry ot "â€¢?'1 . l;las alwaya been a qua . 11ty _ pr~uc~ion ce*ter, dependen~ upon h1 . ~ _ gra4e c1prs ~or its ve.i-y enâ€¢teno~, . thia ~ shirt in . nâ€¢~ket . de _ n)Bnd bas constituted a se v&re blow . ~or ~t. . ~e 'l'a 1 11pa incbiatcy baa been buil _ t . ' -qp on the : manutac~~â€¢ of _ high grade cigars b7 . tlie .'. Spaniah band , pr-oQeaa. ~a procesa 1â€¢ not practical tor loâ€¢ gJ-ade cigars, in the , preaent aech~ . . ' anized age . !l'he 43.8 per cent Claae A pfoduct1on ahoul~ ali :t,e . made by a cncb:ln~. . . . . . . . . . . . Under . ~e p~a en~ . competitive : flo;n41 tlons . ui tli~ nations 1 oi~ . gar . lnduatio:, tbe Spaniah .. hand â€¢yatem 1a no~ au1tal?ie ~9r Claaa C : . production, ~hi~ 11' st 111 .. veey iml>9rtant,. witb 1ts .1 , per cent of the total~ A :faster a7stem t]1an the . Spanish . hand ia ,,aed ~or . thes~ c~gara . in moat ot the c1gâ€¢r producing areas except Tampa. Thi ~ is : the competitive system, urh1cb cer~1n o:r ,. the . Taq,a ma.Dll~ facturers woul4 lik~ to inat._11, . and . -.h~ch ma7 be the only ~oli t:1: on for thia probl8Jllâ€¢ Pa , rt VII o:t _ .. this Report . baa . some : reccaâ€¢ mendationa relative . to this cpnd.1 tion . . . . . Another aspect ot this situation , that ahouJ.d be pointed cnat is t~t it might b4tt poa~ible by er:rectiv e . a:dvert1 sirig and improved .. salesma:nah1p . to . ch~ek the declinâ€¢ the sale o~ the higllar gt.de .... cigars and. rea . tor.e p~:rt . o~ the lost tor them. I~ ia ~ed t~ t , th1a can be done, _ bt a prerequi:sit~ to , f'llnda : to~ etdverthing 1~ a . sys ten, of r:â€¢am,tactur~ pera,1 tt~ . great~r p:roduct-ivit,. to nae~t the eompetit1.on ot other c,enters; .. 1 . Table 65 : sha~a the aaleas ot ..cigars by ~~1.ns the tirs t s+x monthâ€¢ o~ 1~~9. Ptiom . theae n.~a it can b.e . seen that tbâ€¢ . . . si tuatioo la 81:owing .. wor.ae, as the Ola ea A salâ€¢s hâ€¢ve : ' , 1nc;reaaii . to 48~:4 . pâ€¢r cent . o.t. the totâ€¢~~ and the Claaa O ciga~e decreased . . to 37 .6 . per eent. . . . . . . , ' 111 " . Beceua., . o"t . the lJl:IPOPtanc . e o tthis analysis o t the . production ot . the T~ hand pJantsi . a is made . to ce:rr y 1 t a llttle further. Bavare eig~ .P anta ta~~ into group~, : ~â€¢ : probl . aaraa , ot these are no~ mi t~el7 the same~ Pl,anta in ~e f'lrat of these grov.pa Jriam1tacture cl~ar Havana cigars exclusi vel,:. ~ : ln . . the second, part Bava na and part abode, and in ' the third, all! sha de. The production o:r each o:t theae ~oupa, d~vided. 1nto .. five rev enue . classes _ we,.a an,alyzed trm,, 1926-1938 . ,:. . Tables 66 1 67 and , 68 show : ~he qu~tity ups in eaoh 7$ar, 1926~1938, :. divided S..to the revem,e clas sea. From .. ;heae tables 1t , is . aeen that the total .. . pr _ oduc~io~ . ot the clear Havana . plants _ inc~eased 35 _ . 9 per cent betwee ~ 1926 and 1938 ~ that .. ot: the -combination Havana ad shade plants inc~ea~ed 22. , 9 per cent, while that of the sl)ade plants 42.7 per . ~ent, between these . dates . These tables . ala() show that all thr~& . ~oup~ 1ricrease(1 th . eir production of Clas a , A : am Ciaaa B cigars aubatant1~117, the .. c1ear Havana 1ncrea~e . ~n . tlleseclaaaes .. . " ' I ' ' . . . .. . . . . , ' . . . I . ' . Iâ€¢ . . '

PAGE 82

' . . , 70 . ' . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE_ C(GAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA ~ . FLORIDA . . . . . . .. . . . . ' . . . . . . I ' ' ' . being . grea~er th~n . t:pe othel' . s. I _ n all three groups t~ere was a large _ d~cline in the . production or 91as see D and E. In t~e . shade plants arid the c pmb1nat1on plants the production 1il Class C . cigar~ . !=1:&crea : sed, . but ~n $e Hav:a~a p1~nts tQere wa~ e:n increa~e . 1n t.21:1s _ . cl . assâ€¢ lri .. tp.ls perled. , . . : . . ' Tables 69 , '70 , and '71 show th e percentage of : the tota l pr _ o.;. duc~ion in . th~se . three group e ~f' plant a _ th(lt 1s made . up of the . . . . different revenue c lasses .' . It is seen that in 1938 the comb1na: t~ ori plants had 68 ~6 per . ce~t . of their . pr.odlictiort 1n . Olass A 01gars , a:nd the Hav ana plants 51 p~l' cent, while the shade plants had 20 , pe r cent . Likewise, that the combination and Havana ~ pl.anta . . . had 26.6 per cent and 34. ? .. per ~e~t of their production _ in C1a~s : . . c; while the sba4e group had _ 63.9 . per c&nt o r . .' its p:roduot1on _ in . th 1 a e 1 a s s . . . . . . ' . ., . . ! : Table 72 : shows t~e propor-tion of _ the . total p:roduotipn, a i'ld ct = . each or the . r evenue classes, that was produced by each -. of. these . groups o.f plant . a, iri 1938 and as e.:n a . ve:rage o~e~ the period, 1926 1938. i 19 _ 38 ~e f.1r . st two groups . ot pla~ts . produced 86 .. l'.>er : ~~nt of the Class A production . ~ arid the shade pl~nte . 14 per c _ ent. In the same year the . shade plants .. produced 47. 4 . per ce~t . of Cl,is . s C, while the . Ra vana plants and the combination pl~nts produc~d 33.l . per cerit , a _ nd 19.5 per . cent .. o.r . this clas~ . .. : . : .. .. . . ~om these " tables it can be _ observed that in the period pre~ . c . eding _ the d~p.resa1o . n the ~ l ear . ~v . 9na plants pi;-oduo~d a la~ger . proportion o.f hig'h . quality cigars in :the Tampa warket, than t~e . : .. shQ.de p1ante i and th~ latter a larger propo~tion . or Clas . a A cigaz:s. N:ow the s1ttiat1o~ is spm~what rever:aed in rega~ to t-~e lat ter cla~s. The bulk of the shade product ion ha s been in Class C c _ igars tbrougb.~t the ent . +~e p~r1od. . ... . , A ca~~~l . study of theae . tab:i,es sh9uld ~esult in an . 1nt _ ell 1~ gent underatanding or product~on trends within . th~ 1.nduatry, that . lJlight help 1n solving some of' its prob).ems . . , ; Table 73 itho)Ts a s.easoJ1S.l ~n:de.t . or sales c;;r cigars by o~a~ _ ses during each month in 19~8 . Novemb . er a. . nd October are . the busie~t . months 1n the cigar maP.ket . o:f Tampa ~ plants . June like,.-ise . has . .' Piiisk sale s; â€¢~ere . as J'an-ary i . s the duilest ~onth, . foll~wed by: . Dec ember anQ. February. . . . . . .. . . . One of the . construct . ive crit:1:cia~ : that this Report mak~s of . the T,~mpa . hand c iga:r indus try is t ha t the pla:r;i.ts pr . odu(?e too many . different sizes of .. cigars .J{o . de~n : ~erican conipanies 1.n o~her 1n dus tries have learned . that it 1e : cQstly and even wasteful to _ pro duce a mu1tiplic _ i~y ~f models .. anc;l types of products, so have . con. centr ~ted their efforts on as fe,w as possibl~ . .. In Table . 74 . 1 t is seen that 826 . different brands are now being . manufactured by th~ Te mpa hand pl9:nts . Au:~hori t,-es in the : inC,.U~try state that ther~ ar~ at . leB.;S t . of this . n11mber, ol' 400f ditf~rent l siz es of ciga:r-s ma~e in th~ ~ _ amps. p _ lants . : It would seem _' t~at .. the , Tampa c ig9: ' r industry _ sp.ould do a~ other industr,_e . a have found ad. v+eable, and eliminate a .. nimber . of these brands and ~izes . Adverâ€¢ tts . ing of . a _ few brands could be done much more effectively than of a le rge nt1mq er . . . . ..... . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . r .. Tampa Cigar Plants Finanolji:l Statements. . . . . ' . . In 'I'~ble 75 . a: ' compoa it~ balan~ e sheet . i _ s sh~wn ' of the Tampa hand . cig~r plants ea~h .. year, 1926 ~938. These r1 gure~ include . eighteen . plants ,tlle ~ecords . of one plant . being . too incon1plete for : inclusi~n. . It can be seen t;tia t . the capi tal _ iz~ t1on o r the ~ampa hand plants i s . about tl3 , ,5oo,oo. The figure.a show _ a cbns~rv'ati _ ve and favot-able situ~tion, as 'far as th~ c9:p~t~~ization of . tne ple.n~s is . co~c~rned. . The n~t .. w . orth h . a s iner.ease . d sl iglitly in the peri~d, fro~$10,704,000 to . $13 1 334 000 . , r ' is tng to . a pe _ ak _ . . of$15 1 780 ._ , O(?O in 1931 and declin.1,ng after that year to the figure J1emaa , w1 th . cohs!sterit decline. : The ~otal assets . have. increaee d elight~y in .. the period, going _ fr~m $i~, 78 7~0oq . t _ o$ ' 15 ,385 ,099. Assets reached ,: their . ~ eak .. in 19 . 30, with a tot . al ot: $18,203 ,ooo _ , fqll PAGE 83 -~ . â€¢, . . . . . ' . , . OPEBATIIIG RRSULXS OR TA.PA CIG~R PL.ANTS ,r -.. . . . . ' . . ,. . ' , . . 91 . ' . . , ' . . ' . . . . . " . . . . . ' . \' declin~ . f'l'om th1â€¢ ye~ to 19~. !l'C?~l : 11ab~l ~ t1ea : ,a~ . t1;s4a.ooo . 1n 1938, ae ccn1,ared with 12,059,00Q -. ln 1 . 926, In 1988 thq .,. ..$3,223,.000 rro~ which P4?1Jlt ~ey aeci1 n~ to ~.ti .297,000 , 1n 1a~_, . .. rising &ach year . n.som . thia _' date to 19~8. . CUrrent â€¢nd :tixed aaaita . . ~nd li _ abilit.1â€¢â€¢ ~â€¢ nU aa aco~ta recei . vabl.e a,d . ~acounta .Rlff:ble . _ . ~ may 11~eâ€¢e be . aeen . ~,, thia table . . . _ . . In Table '76 certain 1-.t1oa an~ percentagea o~ .th~ balance al;le~t fig\ires are shown. The rat1o . ot wwking c.ap1tal~ or current wets , to curr~nt 11 . al:>1 . ~ltiea, was 6.04 in . 19 . !8, a -ta\torable , i-atio, . bl,t; . . not . as great aa in a91,,_ past years. The ratio of net worth tQ cur rent 11abit1ea -.a s.s2, ~ch 1~ llkQwi~e . ra~~rablo, bu.~~ ~s . great as 1t baa been . in rec~nt yearis. . The ratio of . net vorth to .. total 11ab111t1ea waa 7 .24. . '1'he ratio of ne : t : worth to total aueta was . 87 _ ; of current 4USeeta to ' . total . aaaeta, .61â€¢ . and of . ~Ul'rent 111il _ bil1t1es to . total . 11ab111t1ea~ .85~ The ~tios . ~hen, aat1~tact~ cond1 tiona . . : . Table 77 . ~houi3 ve~ : aigniticant tigurea _, na1-â€¢ly, t:tie â€¢t , p rof~t of the 'l'enrpa planta UGh ~ar, 1926 1938, tr1th the : percentage Qt th1a p~o~it t~ net 1R11 1 tb _ . Of the ninet~e,;i ~ . hand pl.antâ€¢â€¢ t.heae data we1'e n9t : ava ilable ' tor tniâ€¢~o, 1'b1ch ~ all saie . a tb1~01.gla a _ e~ling companiea, and did not haâ€¢e data mos-. ing net ' prorit ~or t.hia period. . . . . â€¢. . .â€¢ These . t1gul'ea . teU a s~d story, . and ahoul~ ~e a . conc:lua 1.,._ , . answer to per.sons not .tam1 liar ~1th the a . 1 ~t1 . on ' who ar~ 11nder the 1mpreesion that .. the ~a,,ap-. hand plants have mâ€¢de )~rge profit-, la , . . . f I recent Yf'az-e. The net protita ot the cQJâ€¢tPantea have dâ€¢~Dd.led . rwm . . . $2,138,000 in 19~ to te ,ooo in 1938 . lfot .- â€¢~1 1ndu~tr1ea tlle Un ited States . bavâ€¢ a ,.. precil)itc;rua drop. On ,.._ a capitalâ€¢ : ization exceeding tl3,ooo,ooo, , a 6 per cent . return w0'11d amnunt to . at least teo<> 000 annually. Th~s t~~e ~a not be . en approaeW . . since 19~1 . h . return c;,n invea:ted câ€¢p . ital was a.as . pel' cent la .. 1938; ~nd has b~en _ leas than 2 per eerit every year with one eJCâ€¢ c epti ori ince 1932. In '1931 ~d : 1930 the ~eturns were -' tair, ez ceeding 7 per cent and 8 per cent, reapectively. . Prior t~ 1930 the profits . nr.e .. excellent, excee(\11'.Jg . 12 per cent. Any bwiineN . operating ,1nder sati.a.tacto17 o~nditioruf sbou.ld be able to r~alise 6 per cent on 1ta . 1nvestztâ€¢ar;it. It its returmr are le . as than third ot this . aâ€¢â€¢tm1nt. something is wrong and sho:uld be cCJrrectel. . In 1938, . or the ~netee.n ha1t;J : c1sar . compe~iea , or T8JllPa . ' . ' six made ~rotita . at all. or . aix eQmpanlea onl.7 t . : . . made aatla c:O . i:.t prolita . the ~eturna . or th e oth~ thre e beiâ€¢ -~sm a11. _ 1'1i1â€¢ 11198D8 ~t only one,-thi?d or the . bend . ciga~ COll;p&QSeB .. . of Tampa are me!:rt~ â€¢~ prorita at â€¢J;~# ,nd onl.7 one-atth or taeâ€¢ are 1:Mki~ aatia~act . ory prot~t e . ThiaJ â€¢~ tat1op 1a a ve~ 1iaa~ 1s factory one . ,ma ltiould convince eyo17one . or the neQeasitf ot . p ~ompt 81'.'d ettective mea . aur.ea be~ takai by tbe . inmi:atr,. it lts . expects to ~ont1nu~ to ope:rate. . . . . . . tll.e . n.rat au â€¢ontha .. . ~ r 19~9. repor . te frClll tw~l~e or tile : hand , cigar plants .. ahciu~ a tl~t loss . â€¢ounting to appro,x 1matel7 . 0.43 per _ cent on . the capita11 . zat1orâ€¢ o~ theeâ€¢ c ompanie~~ . P:tâ€¢of'it; am. ~o aa . tor t~ other -com.paniea nqt . available . 1'!18 . ' .,. down,rard tr~n~ gt eai-ttinga ~ppeara : to 1?â€¢ contiio11.:ng. . . â€¢. . . Ta'blea 78 and .-,9 show a o . o,!tpoa 1 te pl'of~ t and loss . f!t~ tement,. . together wit h ~rcentag~a . or each si-oup of exp~D:Ses . to coat qt l'9a f o?:' ea~h year :tr~m 1926 ~ -1938~ Because . of_ th~ lack of deta11e4 ex. p ense recordi, in : ~ome Q.f' t~e plant.e, these data . were compiled tt2 r otirt~en plan ta . . . . It can be aee n that the ne t saies . ot the eonwpan1 as have de cr~ase4 in recent yearsâ€¢ 1n 1938 being a1?out .. halt ot th~ total. in t . h~ peak n~, ~~29, but sliglitlf larger than . in _ the d _ epre~a1~n . y ea~s., !l!he ra-tio of . 0019 t or sales t o netsales has 1nc~eased ily since 19 26â€¢ .being 7~ . 4 per . ce;nt 1n that year . and . 81.8 per cent in 1938~ The ratio of _ selling c~ . ,ta to _net sales ha~ J 1kf3wiae in creased :from 5.6 . per . ca nt in 1926 to . 9.2 per . ce _ nt . in 1938â€¢ wh1Je adm inistrative costs have. risen :rram 5.4 per cent to . 7.6 per cent. This con2;1tant 1ncrease in the propo~t . ion to . the . total . cos ta, . . . ' . ' ' . ' ' . . ' . . ' .. ' . . 'â€¢ .. . . . . ., . . .. . ' . ' .. . . ' ' PAGE 84 . . 72 . . . . . THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAJPA, FL,OR/f)A . . . . . . ' . . . . . . I ' . ' .. I ot .. _ pr _ oduction ~oats, :_ a~l11ng costi,, :end adm1 _ 11is~rative costs o~ the . rJants has ,mea~t that ~he margin of profit : has grOl,ftl steadil7 ~ â€¢~ . er. . For tbia group ot .p~anta . it has dropped from . a peak. : or 9 .. 5 . per cent 1n . 1928 _ to 0.1 . ~er ce.~t ~ 19~~ , bas . ed on net sales, . Thia marg _ in of tota 1 coats to a"~e~ fa e~~irel7 _ too .great. 1:t ls . ca~ed by a redu ction in lea . pric~a, possibly combined ~tn a 1â€¢ck ef'f'1eient . oparation . of' . the plants. . : . ' . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . 6 Tactipa . Cigar P lants ' Taxes . . .. . . . . ' . . . ' Ohiet .. 06s . ts or . . . ,. ~od~et ion: .. Le.b or, Tob . â€¢cco, . . . ' ' . ', . . . ' . this .sub-a~ction and . the. one which roliowa . the individual . _.. eosts .. of . the b~n~ ciga~ : p~apt a : ~l~ be po~t . ed out , . the . ~ost iJl;>o~ tent ~o ~t . s :t"~rst, . then ~ th~ . minor . 011es . : Det~iled cost . figures ._ were . ~ot avai lable in a~l th~ . p~an~s ror psars to 193 _ 0 . , _ so ~he ones shown : for the . entire group of com.p _ anies are from 1930 l.938 . Table 80 ~oâ€¢ .s ~. the th.re~ principal ooa te o _ f ~e Tampa hand . . . . . ' . . . cigar .. 1nd~atry , labor, tobacco and tuea. . La}?or rerera to the . dfrect . labor used . 1:n the . plant , . tobacco to the . coat or tobacco alone, e,teludi!).g dut~ea, and ' taxe . a . .' to . the ' total . taxeâ€¢ p~id by . ~be cOJDPll ni~, Pederal, state and local, ~ncludin;g dutiea. on 1Jll. ported tobe.c . co. . . . . . . .. In --1938 , labqr comprised . 40.8 per cent of . t~ coat . ot aales, .'. tob , acc~> 27.s per cent, and taxes 20.3 per ce~t. tli~ three . to~ether making :ui> 88.6 per cent o . t . the total coat or sales i~ the .. plants. . I{iring tbe pe~i od, . ~9S0-1938, .. labor. made up . 40.6 per . : ce~ . t . of ." 1he . cost ot sales, tobacco 30~2 pe1' c~t~ taxes 19. ~ . por c . ent . and the three together. ao . 9 per cent. : . The proportion of total coat of sales represented by _ labor 1n creased during this period, . 1.8 per c~nt, or ~om . s9. q pe:r cent to . 40.8 per cent~ In 19~4 labor conatitu~ ~2.1 per cent of the ~oat of sales, . fo1low1rig ; which it d.ecl~ed . to . 1938. S ~ l'ight changes 1ri .. .. . labor rates~ and the tr&?Jd . toâ€¢al'd . the partial . use o-r . lQ8cb.1nes 1=n . . s9me o~ the plan~s, accounted to1: tb~se c~&!\8 ,as~ . . . . ~e propQrt ion ot c9st ~epre('e1:1ted l>Y taxâ€¢~ . inc , reas.ed 3.1 per ee _ nt, or from 17 .2 per cent ~o .20 _ .3 per c~nt during th1~ period . . 1.'he addition of soci~l . s~curity taxes and ~ncreased Federal , state artd local t _ axes w&re ehi~.f' . ly re~pons ible r or this increase. .. , . The prop 9rt1on . of cost represented by tobacco _ dec lined. 5.3 p er . ~ent, Qr trom. 32.8 per c~nt to 2?~5 per cent between 1930 and 1938. ~er.e was s . ome reducti _ o~ ~n .. general market prices of . tobacco dur. : 1ng this peripd, end some lower grades . of tobacco we ~ re purchased Th~ change 1n market . ciei,1end . to cp.~~per . ~ _ 1gar~ . has caus . ed ti;ie b ompan1es 'tO . us.e clij:taper tobacc. . o. The general quality or Cuba~ ~obaoco . has declined somt,ld1at . in , r~ce~t year . s , 01_ring to 1 . nade(luate . ferti~ . lizatfon and advera~ c11m~tic conditions. ~ discussion of . the t~ .. be:ccp prob1em has been gi v:en . in P~rts I and V . Table . 81 . ~1'1cws th~ c , os . t of . labor-~ tobacco, and ~axes . pe~ JI cigars . manuf . ac~ed by the . Tpmpa ~lants , . 1930 _ 193 0. In 1938 . the cost . of labor per Jl : c 1sar~ inanufactured was .$19.63' _ , of tobacco, . t~3. _ 26, encl of t~es _ , $9. '76 . The average costs . during ~hie period were labor, . 121.25, tobacc o Jlf?.84 , and tax~~$10-0'7 . The p~esent . cost or all thre~ is 1o war . than th e a:verag e c . oa't , of eaoh tor th1 11 pe . r1od. . . The sinn .. o r th~ t'nre~ waa . t42.65 . in 1938 . while the av~r~ age . total of thethree ro . r th e period . ns $4'7 .16. . .. . , . . . : The . next _ table, numbe~ 82, shows . the co . st o~ tobacco and du ties ~ eac~ year., .. tb.~n the am~unt , of . each separate+y w . ith the percenta6e of each .to the . total. T.he . cost . of tobacco has d&clin~d, . . . . rroin$5, '780, Oc;>P . i 1930 . tp $2, 90 _ 7 000 in 1938. It . reach~d a . . , . :).ow cost of t2 1 379 ,000 . in 1935 . ~e 1938 t otal ts higher t~n in an-y ye _ ar eince ._ l932~ with o~e exception. . . .. . . . The cost of . duties ha:s ; fluctuated . considerably _ in this peri: od. . :ae g 1pn1ng nth$1,311 1 000 1~ 1 930 they . declined . to $67 . 4,00 o . 1 n 1 9 ~4, rising a.gain t~ _ J;;J;.,206 ,ooo in ~937, _" a nd dropping to . . ..$953.,0 . QO in 1930 . ~e low duties of 193 1 and l 9 35 can be trac ed . to the effects -. o~ . the Quban Reciproci~y Tr . eaty~ '.In 1936 thee~ . , 1 I . . . . . . . . . ' .

PAGE 85

' . ' ' . . .. ' . . . . ' '4-. OPERATING RESULTS OF TA.PA CIG A R PLANTS . . . . . . . . . . .. ;.. t . . . . . . , 73 . ' . . . . ' ., . . .. ... rates we;-e raised and t_he duties ros e sharply. These r~tes are , .. , s h own in . Tab le 49, in Part V. . . .. .. .= D\l.1'1ea COJRJl't-ic,e about one-third of the cost of . tobacco 1a.. ported b'om Quba. . S _ eve,ral years ago they made up about one-ftnir , th. As some ot the Tamp& plants use aoDMtdoâ€¢est1c tobacco in their op. . erations; ' the coat or ~t~es for tpm,, 1s less. : . . . . . ~able 83 . showa the coat per . M ' oigara manutact:u.red . ot tobacco . and dut _ iea togetheJ', . ~hen s.epara tely . In 1938 : this joint coat .. figure was 117.60 while its average .. for . the period was . teo.~. The . cost ot tobacc~ alone was . $13. 26 per JI 1n 19 . 38 1 end . t1~.eâ€¢ -: . t~ the ~eriod. ~ cost or dui~es )I in 19~ â€¢':1 . " ~42, _ whi~e : lt was . _ 14. 57 for the pei9iod.. . . . . . _ . . . . . . In Table . a, is . shewn ~he aJD0\1 _ nt or taxes or different ktnds , .. pa . id . by t~e '9aâ€¢â€¢ipa plants anrma.1 1,-, ._ 19:50 ~1938, th t _ he percentage . : : of' &~Qb to the total. . In 19:58, '4.6 , per cent _ 9t the tota1 . -. . . ma de up or duties, . and 41.9 . . per cen~ or . 1nterrial r~venue . trm, : . while 13. 6 per . cent repr"s~nt~d other taxes-. . The prQportion t . taxes comprised b~ duti . es has ' been fairly Q _ onstsnt, al:thOllgb the tobacco . imported ;bas : grc;wn 1~ sa expensive~ The ~t made up of . revenue . ta x:ea . baa decre-.sed:, whi.le . the .. other taxes have increa~ed . . sharply. The produetion ~ er lowor priced cigare . â€¢nd. reduced oonsumpt1on . accounted tor moat or the .decreaae in internal revenue taxes~ whi~e Peder.1 6 atat e _ ant\ 1oc~1 . taxes have been: raised subst aiill iall,ca u sing the claa a ot other tazea to increase. . .. . . : . In Tâ€¢b~e 85 is shown ~he coat p~r Jl cigilre manufactured ot .. du ties, 1~te,riial reveZJUe; and other taxes. To 19~8 dut~ea oaat .. t4;35, int erna1 :re~enu . e tax-aa t4.oe, and oj;,her taxes$1.3.2. The pe P.i8c1 ~vei-. a g e of . these cos . ts ns: duties $4.57~ revenue taxes$4.70 81111 other _ .. taxes t .ao. ., . . . . ,. , :, ''â€¢ . . ... . Table . 86 ahou the prea -, nt inter11a~ revenue taxea 9n e a according to th~ princ1pa1 . inte'.l-J1al . re~enue acts .tron, l.9091 . The _ last . cba~e 1n these rates ne 1n 1926 , .th~ rat ea : or this . â€¢. year being . in . â€¢t-tect at the present t 1J1,a. ~e,s e ra tea : per igars are : t. 7~ tor tllDA 11 . cigars weighing not more tban 3 pounds, t2.oo . f or Cl~sa . A cigars, t3.oo for ciaa~ .B~ tf)~OO .. fqr . Class G~ tl0.50 . f or Clas a D, and J13.50 for . Clas~ E . cigarsâ€¢ . . . . . . :i;n P~rt V of this repo:rt . a 1ist of import dut t es on to&toco . .. . is g iven~ Table 49 . The 1936 _ dut1es ar1J effecti" at the ~ae.nt t ime . Theae .. ~uties per _ pound are; .. 11.72 tor ~temumed wrapper , l~ _ .2Q for 11nstf'J::mod wr11.pper, $.40 to~ stftJIGd . filler,$.28 for unsMm:lmed filler and scrap . â€¢. . . . . _ . . It 18 a debatable p . oint as to whether the c . uet.on,s dutiea an4 internal ~evenue taxes on cigars â€¢re shifted tp th~ cons,mer, or borne . by the manuf'~cturer. In v iew of tbe present . highl.y ~0111>9t1tive state o f . the cigar industry, a~d the de . clining ma~ket f OI the .. p roduct, 1~ is believed tbat a . s~bstantial share of these ta:illa is . .. . absorbed by the c . ompau1es. This . tends to 9e eapecia lly applicable in the case of . ~e customs : du~1 . â€¢s , as this ~ax _ 1:s not levie~ i the chief competitive . produc~ of ths . c:J,ga~ . i~dust~y, ci g arettes~ .. Tab~es 87 and ea . giv:e th _ e :t>~e~c.:wn . o:f the ~ taxes 1n t~o typi. . ca1 . Tampa cigar factor . ies in 1933 ant\ 1 9 38. , In the ease of ~ ese . . companie e ~he tax burden am01Jn~ed to 21 ~5 pe~ cent of cost or . aal es . in 1933. and 28.9 per cent of cost ot ~ales 1~ 1939. A dirfe r ence . . between 1;he tuea paid 1n ' these . two peri~e _ was . tha t _ in ~953 a pro. ceasing tax was required, and in 1938 s~cial secur~ty tax~s nre . . in . ef'fect, . _ as well as . unemplQ~nt insurance, bot :q emot 1 nt1ng to . : s u bstantial ite~s ~ Another difference was caused b y: . t h e shhrp inc~ _ eases 1n st . at~, county, and cl ty t~xe~ in t he . y ear s b etuaen 1 9 33 . and _ 1~38 . 'rhe ~ount paid 1n dut . 1e~ s , a l s o much h i g he r. b om . . . thes~ . tabl~s . the , 1nd1viduel taxe . s . paid , b ,ci g ar p lan ts can be se en .. . They show that the tax burden on the Tanipa . ci~r 1ndu s tcy . 1s ao~ onl y h~avy:, b'~t . . ls . in~asing . . ... : . .. . . ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . ., . . .. . . ' . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . I ' . .. . . . 'â€¢ . I . . . . ' ' . . .

PAGE 86

' . . . . . . . ' .. . \ ... ' . . ' '74 . . . . \ . . . . . THE, CIG4R INDUSTRY OF TAJlf A , FLORID4 . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . : 7 Ta1,,pll CigarPlants . Other Cos ts. . ' . ' . . 'â€¢ . . . . . . . . . . . o I . .. Table 89 ~ owe .:the oost per M ciga~s manu.fac . tured of' supplies used by th& Tampa -band . plant~. ~is ~oat . bas tended _ to decrease . from ts.20 :per . II ; in . 1930 to $4.32 p'3r _. M 1n 1938. The ~ost of box. es~ (:ans, : labels . and band~ dec~eas ed:~om$4~46 per M to $3 .:64 in , this period. The cost of oellophan~ per M decreased from$.74 to t. 68. .. . . ,â€¢ S . oale 1nterest1rig .. da ta . on t~e cost of ce ll ophaning are . g11fen . . in Tables 90 and 91. The . firs . t 0 .. these s _ hows comp~a ti7e cos ts . . of cellophan1ng by hand and ;;naohi~e over . a 5-yea~ . period~ . , The cos ts of c . el1ophane, labor~ $. . tid e . 1 ectrici ty . requ:tred by th:e machine pro. . -. cess are given ~ The avera g e cost of cellophaning by machine in . .. . . thi~ pl~t was . t .5~ per M) while the average cost ot ce11ophan1ng . . . by hand was$1.57. The ma : c.hine cost of .. ce . lloph~ning thus r~pre. . sents a rep.~c ~io.n of 64 pe . r . ce~t ii:>cos~ r or ~his plant. Th~ other . table gives f1.gUI'esshowing . comp~rat . ive cost ' s of cellQphaning by . hand and mao~ine. Aecordi.ng to t h e experi~nce . of this plant the . .. ' . ' . . . . . . _ hand cost . was t1 . 65 per M . , and the ma-chine c ost $~82. . Tab le 92 shows the adyertis ~ ng expendi tur~s . qt t~e . 1'smpa harid , . plants;$8 repres~nted by : the perc~nta g e of net sales. This was ... 3.1 per cent 1n 1938~ and was a bout the , same during thi~ period. This is a very .low r_1gure for ~ffe c tive S:dverti . a1ng expenditlll-e~. Th1s tab le likewise i,hows t;he b a d debt expen$es of the plants, :. This is vf!)ry 1~â€¢ , ... being 0.2 per cent of net sales ).93~~ In .: years prio~ td t ha::t; it wa~ higher. 'I'his showa a favorable posi tion as :far . as collection d :f aecoun :t s by _the cigar companies : is .. . . concerned: . . . . , . . .. Be . cause of. + ~ co?D.l?lete records . ;t . was iJ#possiqle . to get some . . of . the : smal1er expend! ~l'es . :t'?'om t ~ ~ e companies. ... . . Tab.l e . 93 shows a . compilation that should . b~ : of irite~es t to _, evecy _ r~ader of th:is . Report. This 1fJ the estimated cost to the :. . . plant : s of giving away fref) 8D10kers . to the wo~kers. . . . . .. Pr _ a,1 the revenue : , booke . of all . the ~ineteen . ha1id . cigar plants of Ta,,,pa figures â€¢~re taken ah~1rig . the nt1mb~r. ot cigara di strt: . . buted each year.. These were giveri at the rat , e ot : three pe:r day . . . to each ,;aa . l~ wor . ~e r 1n __ ~he . plants, . and . ar.e a matter of . reoord ; in . tp.e interns 1 . revenue bOl>ks . of the companies~ . â€¢.. .. Bea1,des . these smoke~s gi~en away at . the . close ot work ~~ch . . day, . the . Tampa worker . a are . pe~mi tte _ q by . tom to smoke . as many . .. as . t~ey like . during the day, made wj: .' th the company I s tob~c co . A . . . great tlllny . aourQe ~ ._ were co nsulted in . th~ errort to a~rive at a . fair est1ma te _ o.f : tb.e ni.unbe . r of . ei gars smoked by . w:orkers . _ 1n th~ . . , . ' .plant~ A caretul esti~te ha~ been made, on ~â€¢ ba~ is ot whioh, : ~t : is 09nc 1ud~d that each . male worker sm(?kes an avera g e . of at .. I 'least three cigars a day 1~ the . plant . . . . . . _ The cost Q.f each o~ ~ese . six c . ig a _ r~ :was next estimated. The . c1 . g~s smo~e d in the plant aDi taken home by cigarmakers .. are _ .fr~_ quentl7 maqe of . th~ most expens . i-ite toba _ oco o~tai~able, and are . . usua lly . extra large 1n stz~. . The . , cigars given a~ay to the em~ : ploye~s . other than ci _ garnia~~r . s ~t the close of the day$.re u~u. ally ch~aper . Conside~1ng t}le se factors, 1 t is . estima t~d that . : the average cost , per cigar . gi ven to the worlnen 1a 5 cents each . . Jlult~ply~~ tpe number ~iven aw~y each y~ar by tb1~ price _ gives a total ann-q.al cost 0 f 403, ~ 14â€¢ tor thi~ period. rt . was 1410,63 7 ,. at the oeginping ()f the period . , . rose . to . t48~,io5 in 19 . 29, and de:.. . clined to t 3~2, 0'70 in 193~. . . . .. . : . . . . . . The conditions surrounding tne smoker practice are discus _ sed . . elsewhere in this ~,pqrt. It . is i mportant tQ note h ere ~hat tl.s . c~st to . the Tampa _ hand pl.ants has be~n . approxi m ately . $400;000 . annual~y. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tampa Ci . gar Pla p ts Emplqyees and _ Wa g ~e. . . \ . . . . . . . . . ' . .. . According to i nformation furnishe~ by the T } nnpa hand cig~r . . . ., . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . PAGE 87 .. ' ' ' . ' . . ' . . . ' ' . . .. . . . ... ' , 6 . ,...., plants, there were employed in . t~ese . plants on .. July I, 19 ~ 9, s ,091 personsâ€¢ .. Thie 1a 96.9 . per . cen~ ~f ~he tqtEtl e~loyed 1n .. th~ plants ' ... in 1926, 84.3 per cent . of those 8>â€¢~loyed in ~he ~]ants ~n 1929, the peak year, and 115 ~ 6 per cel)t or thoae . ea;plo~d 1n 193~~ the,..._. .. of emplo1met . ~eae, n.gures ~ter only to th~ nineteâ€¢ ham _ plants 1n,eotlgated m tliis aurva7~ and . not to ~ny oth~r . plan t' s in In the paet 79ir . 11nploycAnt these pl , anta 6, 28:S in 1926, roeâ€¢ aa high a a . rt, 222 in 1929, &Jld dropped 5 , 2se . in 19S'7 . . !neae r-1gur _ ee ~re ahOlffl in Table 94. . . Of the total .. eâ€¢,qâ€¢loye.a 1n t)le Tampa pl an~s, 51 per . cent are -women and 4~ per cent ar~ nwm. at the preaent time. The total â€¢m~ . . b er ofhas been increa~ Lig in the rlsn"ts ~n recent year~â€¢ . Efforts were ade to get â€¢~ct f;ig\ll'ea cpnce~ing this tr . end, bat . : :. it â€¢~s ~0 1 ind that, prior to the introduction or t~e social _ secei~ taxes, nq aepâ€¢rat1o~ . ot th~ men __ and _ . w()JIJA:a made ih t~ i' e plant . records. Ir1 planta, prior .. t9 tp.e introduction of. ~~ ial . 1ecu rity, . no reoo~ waa . kept or the na:mes p~ ~e workers, iden~1f1oat1on . b e , ing made : entirel7 by m~ber. ~e ott1c1als of. ' m<>st of the plants stated that fJle mJmb'l1â€¢ Qt w:0.4n employed : 1n th:e1r plants was ill_ . oreaa1ng. chief'lJ' in . the c1gava1&k:1~ de~â€¢â€¢l.plient. At the preseat: . . ' tlm:e the or r:!4D a.rwJ (Jt ~en . 1D ___ 111 dt1pâ€¢rt-nt ot the f larits . . . 1 s . eiactl,: eq,,e 1. The . a tripping 1n tll9 p]anta la done eatire 13t by wo)llen. 'Ptie . engae;ei, , 1n banding ~4 oel1.opbenJg _ a1 e al.wt . e ntirelyu u 40 . per cent ot. the . Qffice force. 'l'lle other "'#Plo,.ea aa fe,1eâ€¢â€¢e1i,.helpers, clerks, selector.a, . . packer.a >d ahippera _ &1 e neoatl7 Dl8n. . 'l'he distribution 0 eâ€¢npl,,-es by occ~t1on 1a ~bowri in hble 95. . _ . .. . . , .. In . Table . 96 . ia given tbl â€¢verage weekly wage an~ the . average h ourl7 . eara!Jnge ot . al1 a 11 q;,loyee~ 1p the h _ and cigar plants dt ~ e xclutJ1ng the o~fioe force .and ot:rtcials . !belle are shown by . , mont~, be~ taken 'b7 the Process . of e.xam1ning th e payroll of ' , each pl~t ~or a tJPical nek tr~ : each moâ€¢,t~ 1-n _ . the period Julyâ€¢ . 1 938 .:. .Tun~. ~~39. _ ~e avwage weekly . wage or Tampa cigar emp!c,f. ees t~.86~ arat the averâ€¢ge h~ly r,sge to.39 . '!'be highest â€¢Q~. â€¢. . ly and ,. hourq e~1i1nga ftre ., in Qctobe~, and tile lowest , 1n ,. Febl"IJ8ITâ€¢ . according ~o . tb1 e . table. . llon~Jy â€¢â€¢~lnga ot each worker were wi-y: . d ifficult _ t;o get, tie oa"Ule o~ 1nRl2 . tticiont payro ~ l data relative to . d ays .. worked. _ .'' . . . , . . .. .. ' . .In 'Tab:Le 97 1a shown tne ..,ge . rates paid ,: und.er the Spanish . . hand ayet8JII 1n 1934 and 193g. . The r,.fe~ ror th~ Bava na , mo _ l:,d meellod . are t1. 00 lea a per . . than th~ SpaniJh hâ€¢m 1t1ld . .. rates ' &re . oom1d.t,rab ly . le.ae t~n those ror the ' 11&.vana . mo l~, th1â€¢ differential r,"'81ng fluo.,, ll.50 . 19.50 P~ ii~ . The rat~ ~id _ bt,; 1 ~~h..: . ' makers on m,,wi,ing ai,acb1nea la 1<>~90 per . .. . . Table 98 g1vea i?he average weekly- â€¢â€¢ge~ ot . c , lg$.ruekers ua ~ . ' . t ~e d~ttarent pl9Qceas~a, and ot other workers . 1n the plan~s, in a twe1ve-Jitorath pe~1od . trca 3.~JJ' . , 19SSJ'lln.e, 19~9. '?he , average ot. . a l~ . qigax,akfira ~ the ' Tdspa band . plants during ' th~e .. period ,as $13~86. The oporat~rs got ~ a _ n a~e1age o.t t1s.a~ : â€¢~ekly, t he : band w,'1.d . 01>eratora 114.62, th,e workers uai~ the compet1 . t1w . . systâ€¢ 11S.. '11 . . S~â€¢ ba1id workâ€¢~â€¢â€¢f ;t~ .63, .and the workerâ€¢ on the machlJ:ie-bunohed. he,cl-r.Ql~ed pr.ooeaa 112.58 _ . .. . Packen reoolved . f24.~ â€¢~ekl7~ selectors ,22.~~ bander.a pi..o7 and _ str1ppera P,.06. In oon _ aidering th~â€¢~ ~ea it ~t . be r _ bered _. tnat the plâ€¢rata n1e n9t operating a :till t1ve-da7 week, 'bat consiclerabq leaa, part the . t1 , 1m _ . . . . . . . . ' 'l'he . ~rcdntage d1.atr1butfon or cigarcaakl,rs by p~ocesses ia . sho . an in Table 99. Pr,m., this 1 t is seen that 48.8 per cent are em. .. . . . . . ployed in the mo1..4 pi-o~eaa 2'1. 1 . pe~ . cen~ ,-n : mac 11 1ne-b11nchaa_ . h and-roll~d pro~esa,. aoo ~.7 per _ cent in the Spanien hand prqceas, with a ven e,,,.~ number . 1,a1ng â€¢â€¢iAcb;inea and ' ~& compe~i ti~e : pr~ss . Acoordlng , ~o the ttg1,rea shcwn tor these gr~ps, the machine gr oup accounts ror the largest output in proportion ~ . o 1 ts nim,hers, . th e inaeh1ne-blUlched, band-rolled group the next, the â€¢. competit~ve .. warkez:-s . the . third, the mold 1'ol9kers the fourth, . and t h e ' Spanis:g b&l\d . ' workers the . lowes . t. . . . .. . . . .. : . . . , . ' â€¢, .. .. . . .. . ' ' ... " . . I .. ,. ( â€¢, 'â€¢ . . I . . . , . . ' . . . ' . ' . PAGE 88 . . . . . . . ' . . raE CIGAR . 1N.1Jus1R Y OF T~ â€¢PA, FLORIDA . . . . . ' .. . .. I . I ' . .. . . . . 9 Tampa Cigar Plants Costa o f Different . Proces.aes. . . . . . I .â€¢ . _ :In tne . survey of ,the . cigar : inroistryof Tampatp:e cost . records : of tpe plants were caref'ully _ checked to . deter~ine the labor eost p _ er JI _ ~1g~s . _ by the different p~oce~ses _ and __ the cost _ of _ the d.1fferent operations. Twe _ lve s~mP le . weeks wer.e selected . from each . month from July, 1938 to ~ June , 1939, fnclus 1 ve, and the J.abor . cost . . and . e&rnings . of each wo . ~~er studied or: these periods. ' . . . . Table 1.00 . sho . ws the average labor cost . per M cigars pe~ work. er . to r be t13 .50. A comparison of the _ la~or c ost tinder t~e . differ.ent };la.nd processes is . rnteresti With the . ~p aniah hand process . the ' labo~ :cos t . per ~ cigar s was ~4 .89 .. :W~ th the band mold process it had _ bee~ lo~el'~d . to tl7 . ~4. , 1th . ~he cq,mpet itive system it was lowered sti 11 _ :further, to$15~23. The short filler cost per JI ~1th .. . .. . . the bllnching ma . chine and band rollers was $7 99 . per M, while with the aut01,sa t1c machine it . . was$2.04. . . . , _: . . For this :p~riod ' : the iabor. cost . perM for atrippii;tg _ was . $1.3 _ 4, . .. forselec ting 3().7~, . for -packing$1,69, and: ~or banding , to _ .56. 1'h _ e cos t f1Fes eonta~e . d . in th~s table , being ba . se~ o~ ~ c. . tual oper,,.~ions . , indioa t _ c, : that . the Spanish . hand sy1tem of maklng cigars is :the mos _ t expensive o~ any, . that . t~e hand mol;.d system 1s . . much more econom,-ca . 1, and that the c~:inpetiti ve -. system has a c9st advantage over both of these . It als . o shows the very low . labor . .. cost . o f prod'1,cing . ~hort r _ 11~er c~g _ ars th an au~oa,atic .' ma~h1ne. . ~able 101 shoQ the product! v1.ty o r c igar11aakers us~ ; the â€¢. di:ff'eront .. process~s ~ The figures in this table we"l"e taken trom ; sample . weeks each of the twel. ve mo~ths, July,. . 1938~June , 1939, and the p:rodue tion to~als of . eyery worker . work ing a tul1 . _ wee~ . . . . added for tbe ~e . periods. , : Acco~ding t<> these r1gures the p _ roductiv . ity of th~ Spanish hand . worker wa~ 512 ci,gars per we e1c, . of th~ han4 . mold . worker 812 cigars p~r w~ek, a _ nd _ of' the worker .' using the compet1t 1v . e ayst . ~m 910 cigars per week. For the ~liort f1ller -. c . 1gars the worker using the machine~ . bunch~d, hand-roil . ad . p~ocess .. made 1, 575 cigars a . nd th~ worker on . _ .. . , the au toms tic me.chine, 8, 1 37 cigars. . . . . . The index n1.1mh er at the foot of the table . denotes the . relative productivity of . the dif'f.erent pr9 _ ceases ~e mold me~hod is 159 . per cent as : prodi?,cti ve _" as the }?.an~ method , an~ th~ competi t1:ve .. pro cess 178 per ceflt . as . p~o~cti ve \I' ~e automatic -: m~chine . is ten , -.fold as _ product i ve as : . the . mold .. method, and f 1 ve-fold as pro~ucti ve as -' . t ne machine-bunched, . hS:nd-~o ' lled proc es ffe . . . . . Th1 , s table . shows . the tnold system . tQ be . mo . re product! ve th.an the Spanish hand, and t lie . compet 1t1ve syst~m to be more productt : v:e ; then either one . , on lG>ng filler c~gar.s . It also : shO\fS the high productivity of the automa~ic maQhine for sho~t filler cigars. . , _ The :figures in 'l'~ble 101 show the actual produc~ivity o:r oi-:. ga:rreakers 1n Tmnpa 4ll:I'ing a 12-month period. -. However -. as .. most of ._. -these weeks did nQt iric~ud ~ a full fo~ty hours, a more ~xact ba~1s . of compar~son is presented i,n Table 102 which was compiled to ~ow . producti _ yity . and earni?)gs . for exac t _. hours, 8-hour days and 40-hour weeks. On ~ccount of incomplete . plant re cords, it was imposs , ible to ge t these . figures fr.~m al:-1 of the : plants, but . the ones included among 'the niG>~t repreaent~ti ve of :tl.1.e T~mps. hand plantsâ€¢ . . . These figures 1:dicate . that eig~r111Blter . s under the apantsh bani method have a product . ivity of . 13:.35 , cigars , pe:thour, 106!t8 cigars . . _ per 8-hour . day , : and , 534 . ciga-rs per 40-hour . we _ ek~ . ~ Workers : using ~he .. ~d mold method . h~ve a _ p r oduqt~v~ ty of 20 .44 c1ga~s . per . hour; 163,5 : cigars per 8"."'hour day:, .. aJ?-d 81"7.6 c . igars . per ' 40-h~ we ~k, Workers making . cigars by . the machine~bunched, hand-r.olle~ process have an outp-q.t: _ of , 42.58 , per . hour; , 3 . 40. _ 6 per S~hour day, .and 1,703.2 per . 40~hpur _ week . The ratios b etweep the . productivity o f ' th~ di f:terent metnods . do _ not ~ vary much . fyom tll,ose 1n the pre~eding tabl . e. ' . Tl:ds . table also shows t , he hourly, daily; and . weekly e~~ngs of 'â€¢ c~garmakere ~nge.ge~ ' in . the differ~nt proc~.s:5 . es, and likewise the : earniligs or pac}{er a, . selec tors, banders, and . s.tr ippers 1:p. the plant s ; . ' . .. . . ' . . . . .. . . ' . . . . . . . ' . .. \

PAGE 89

.. i .. . . OPERATING . RESULTS OF TA.PA ClG.AR ' PLANTS .. , . " , Theae ti,gu.res, taken trom the , QpeN.tiona o~ ttie Taâ€¢â€¢apa ~ind pla~ts, fail to ahow the ~ real auper1or1ty of .tb.'9 . c0J11pe t1t1ve IIJ:a-:. tam for long .t:tl1er clgars. ~d t:P,e auta,aatic :machine ~or short . f}ller cigars. . The hand plahta using the cc;:ap~ti ti . ve 91atem lll'e do1ng . it , on a vef!7 scale. with fa~111t1ea that do not ~ mit a ~1 teat of 1 _ taproducti'Y'1~7 . ~ Libâ€¢~ . a~, . the . plants~ . autJB.tic machines have only a few o:t thec,, and have not bed U.se fo r a ver:y long pex-1~, . so are not prep&red to _ ge~ the .1e.produc~1 vity. :trom the,u. . , r t .... ' ' , . . . . . ' + . .. .. ' .. . . , . . .. I ' ' , ' . ... I ' . . .. I . . l . .

PAGE 90

'â€¢ ' . . . , . ; ' ' . . 1 . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . Part W . ' . .. . . . . ' . ' . . . I . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ATIONS. ' . FOR THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA . . . . RECO . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . , ' < l System 9~ Manuf.'actur.e. . . . ... , . . , . . . . . . . It . 1~ _' felt that the cigar manufaetrers . of Tampa . sh~ld . have th;e rlgbt to use ~y system they . desire in ~heir ple.nts . It is a c~~~inal p:r.inciple or sou~c;l _ economics anq. American busi ness that the management : of . busip.ess should d~te.rm~pe 1 ts pol . 1c1es a~ methods of opera~lon. Once this pr1nciple " is abando~ed, any , . economic system based on free ent~rprise and competition is doomed, Government regul a ti9n has e ncroached more . and more on this pr1nci. pl _ e, . and has made its e.pplfcation dlft 1cult . . . . . . There .. has been noth1n ~ 1n . the -. findin g s o . f this survey to . indi cate that the ci g ar manufacttJr e1rs of Tampa are not . capab le of . se. ' . ' lect ing s~tisfa ctocy manufaetur ' ing processes and putting them : tn . operati on. It . 1 a l: i elieved tbat _ thei r judgement and decisions in such matt er,s should be unq1:1estionecl . by labor or any _ other group. . A number of Tampa. . manufacturers would li}{e to " use the system . that has ,. b~en u sed very succe ssfull y in certa in other a~eae, . . .. not~b;i.y New J . eraey, New York and Pennsyl . vania, termed the "competi t ive" system . It . wa a explained in . several sections . of this Repor . t. . . . It is . rec _ onunended . t b at the . co~:petitiv~ ~yste~ . o~ _. cigar manu~ . . factur . e be !Jermi tte d . th o se Tampa nianu:facturers who want to use it, and that it be cons i dered as in:cluding ._. the . L1 ~b-e1' 1 r 1 an bunehing machine . Ol' 1 ts ~quiv~lent, w 1 th . or . . wi t.hout molds . ( open or clo sed), . with or . l{ithm l t suct . i . on tab les, and with or w:i th.out thimbles . This .. would be a true . interpr . eta~it>n .. of the co~peti tlve system . a . a used . . b y the pl _ anta 1 the . nor~her~ area, . which are the chief oo~peti t ors 1 qf the Tampa cigar .' companies. _ . . . .. . . . . An Ai-bi trati : on Awara. by M: r . Ca.r . l R. Schedler, . of tll~ U~i ted . States .Department . of Lab : or, on Feb~ary 24, 1939 set a . wage . rat ~ s . sc~le for the competiti-ve s y stem 1n Tampa _ , which scale corresponded with that in us : e in the northe1n area. . The rates used bv Mr. ' . . . . . . . . ... ., Sch ed ler wer.e based on a field inve stigation of the northern plante py . ~he _ Unite . d States Depar . tment of ~abor . , the report on which wa~ published ne cember 4, . 1937. . . . . . The present cig a~ aurv ey included a _ p ersonal c h eck C?n the yage . rat _ es ~sed . .. ~n the nor _ thern p l a nts. These plants were v . isited . by the Director o:f the S~vey for this purpose, and to _ obs . er . ve OP.era~ tions . general conditions in them. . It was f o unc;1 that the pres.;. ent rates do not di ff . er much from those in eff ect at the time of the -.! J.. ~bor :Pepa:rtme~t 'a invest~ga . tion, . so~e small ch~ges . having . been maae . . . . . . , . It is recommenC:ted .. tha~ t}:le , wage rat e scale fo~ the compet1~ive . .. sy~tem of ci _ g ar manufacture, as con~t;1.ined . in . the A . rbi tratlon Award ot: t:tie Unit ed States Depar ~mel)t . of Labor of February 24, 1938, . be . . f _ ollowad by the cigar indu,.stcy 'of _ Tampa, . in those plants using . t~e qompet _ 1t1ve sy~t em of manu:f . actur e, ' Likewise, that ' the ~ethod of map~factur e with -. the use of : th~ drum mold, know , r1 as the "T~mpania" system, be : accord~d ~he same wa g E! r a~e . scale. . ' . I ' . ' It i s believed that with . the U:se . of the competit . ive or . Tampani a s y stem . of ma.nufac ture; the _ production costs 9f the Tampa . \ ' . ' plants .... c . 01J ld b~ red-ced, ' ab~t 25 per cent, and . t he earnings of the workers could be inereas~d 2040 per c . ent, prov ided the ssma de gree . of cs.'re le given to th e preparation or tne tobacco, the . same economias a~e ~ppl ' ieq., and the .semA cooperation received . from the . workers, aa in the plants . in the . northern are0i. '!'able 12 , in Part I~, _ illu~t~ates the comparativ~ superiority ot the competitive system ov . er the Spanis;h hapd ~d ha.nd mold methods. .. The figures shown 111th ie ta'ble seem to indicate c onclusi~ely that the introduction of . the competitive system of . cigar . manufac ture to Tampa 1rouid be of great . b . enefit t _ 9 both the ma.nu:factureTs . and tt:ie ,,rorke rs . In . 1 ts ~eginning the c9lI).peti ti ve sys tem might . . . ' .. . ' ' . . 78 ' . ' ' . . " .

PAGE 91

. ' . . . . ' . . . . ... t, I J . . . . , ' . REcoâ€¢â€¢ElfD.ATI()N.S FOR . THE tAâ€¢P~ CIGAR INDUSTRY ' 4 ' . ' . . , .. . .. . . ' . . , . . . . . . . .. . . . .. result in tbe displacement o,t aonie wo~ke~s, ,. but 1 . t ~a beli eved . .. . "' . . that the~e cQUld be rea,~aployed . later on. Pos~~bl7 othe~ tas~ in the . plant . a mi@Jl t be found .' tor so~e of. . th~. . . . . . If t~e ' com~t 1tive system ls brQught to Tampa, . ~dequate train: . i n g of the worlrers in the use of th e . ~ystem , i _ s neces~s~ry . A train. ing school f9r the â€¢~rke;ra engaged in the . process might . b~ ad:v.1~ a ble. . : ,. . . . . It is essential to the proper operat1 on c;,f the compet 1t1 . ve . . s y stem tp~t mQre attention : be devoted to ~e preparati~n of the tob acco than is done at ~ present . in the Tampa pl~nts, :, and tba t 1 t be i n a co11:dit!on en tirel7 suitable for the high productivity expected . . . . of thi _ s . system. Also; that . other econo~es in the plant$of . nW'tb. e rn c i g ar CODlpanies us , ~ng the system ~e .:. 1ntrQduce~ into ~e Ta~ . p _ lan ts, in conneQtion _ with . i~. _ . . . . . . . . , . . . . â€¢.. I . . 2 . Technoiogica] Improveme1:1~s ~ . ; .. , . ' . . ' ' . . . . 1t is recoim,1ended . t h at . the ri,&nlpa c1g$r man.llfactttrers ~neat1. g ate _ the possil>i11 ty of iris talling m~ch~nical : dev~oes . in their p lanti:t for var~ous operations tpat can be p~~~ormed sa~isfac~or~ly a nd at a . lower cost b7 . such devices. .. -. :. . .. . First among these are . the automa . tio _ machines. which make the e ntire , cigar . . As has . been explained . in Part II, tte~e a:1'e of . two ty pes, 1 ong tiller and short . f~ ller. The lon,g filler J!lachi . ne ia . u se d . ~xtensively 1n northern plants on 5 cent c.i _ p;ars, . nd t n~ operator . ca n pe rfo:r:m bot~ of tbe se function~~ Its cost per . ~ igars is much less tban â€¢hen th&~e operations are . done aeparatal.J )>T h~ . . These comparative operating cost ' s . ~e shown in : Part II 3. nd . in _ Tables 90 and 91, Part V I. ' . ' Mechanical devicee . other than those me~tioned may be found ' . . . . . . .. . .... , .. . .

PAGE 92

PAGE 93

. ' 1 RECOMitENDATIONS FOR THE CiGAR .. fNDUSTRY op 'fiâ€¢P~ .. 81 . sent out from the T _ a~pa radio statio~s, , one in th~ morni:ng or at noon, and the othe r . 1n . the ev . ~nin~. pop~;l.ar _. effo:rt might be ade by th e civ ' ic club a of Tampa to 1nc:rease the smoking of Tempâ€¢ cl.gars in this ar _ ea and thrQligbout ~he nation. The clgarmakers' ~1nlona ; in the city recen~~, aen t ~ t appeal~ to ~ion m~~bers _ throughout . th e Un1t$d . States to ~uy Ta~pa cigars. , 'l'his ef~ort cou ld be follqwed . by similar ones by the uniol).s, which ~hould be . helpful . 1:)irect ma;1 ?a~paig??-s embr.~cing l.ist~ of prominent people th roughout the coun~ry-; containing the opinions of othe r prominent peopl e as to the merits of Tempa-~ade Havana cigars, should be effective, as Americana _ a~e easily influenced by wbat well_ Jm. peopie say~ If the people o~ Tampa get solidl~ be_hind. the a~ t-o:rapt . to advertise Tampa-made _ o . i _ gars, ~ t would be of gr~at help to the cigar . comp9:nies in their ef . for~e directe~ toward t41s e nd. The third fbrm _. of adv~rtisin g that might benefi t the 'l'ampâ€¢ cigar i ndustry could be engaged in c;,nly in co . llaboration with the oth e . r cigar . companie~ ._ ill: the country. This , ~ype ~ould . stress the smoking _ of . cigEirs; in _ the attempt to increase the . habit al!long the Am~rican people. Nothing has ever been done along th~s line, and 1 t would prop _ ~bly be di ' fficul t to g~t the cigar manufacturers to a g ree ~o it. Excellent results wer~ ac~omplished tiy ' the ciga:rette ind ustry through this method, which was _ _. part _ ly ~esponsfble ... t'or the enormous i:ncJ-ease in cigarette smoking s lrrce the World War. , To increa~e its sale ~ the ci g ar industry n eeds tp popularise c igar-smoking . among fashiohable peopl~ 1~ . ~he cou~try . If ~e hosts . at s ocial gath;)rings could be i nduced to . offer quality cigars to their guests, 1rtstead of cigare t . tes, it might he ' lp. rf' aocia;l.17 prom inent men . were ~een in , pup _ l . ic . Sltloking . cigaPs, it might li kew1se help. If the popul9:r mov:ie stars o f Hollywood were to s111oke c , igars in t}:leir p~ctures, . 1 . nf:'tea<:I of having the _ se show cig9.l': smoking ~y by tiderworld characters and . labo r~rs, . a great deal m . ight be ac. co mpl ished for the cigar industry. ~opular radib campaigris might likewise be . : conducted fo,:this purpose. ~any other m~ans of' popu l ar izing c~ga~ smoking in America c . ould be used, it' the ~igar man uf _ acturers . of the . country would join together 1 . n this mQver:.ent~ . Any advertising engaged , i,n by '!ampa manufacturer s should . be on a sustained bas , is-, . not me~el . y :for a short peri od. The reSlllts . frOJn advertising _ mi$t not be realized quickly, and a su:ff1cient1y long pe _ rio<;l should b _ e devo . ted to . an advertising . pro g r~m to give 1 t a fair trial. . . . . ' . . A se . nai bl _ e .method of . fin~ncing . advertising . wou1 be to . set aside a. portion . of . the . savings from plant mode rni,zation for that p~ rpose. Be~ides advertising, the . Tampa cigar companies should improYe the ir . methods of selling. For many of the companies these a:re the . sam~ as were u~ed generations ago. verj few .' of . the cig _ ar CDl2 pa nies have upto~date. ~ff ' icient selling o rganizations today. A tho rough r . eorganizat ion o r m~y of these 1s . needed. A careful st-udy of the ~elling methods _ \.lsed by . su _ ocesst'ul American c . oxr,p~nies should be y.aluable in solving _ tpis problem. The ~ampa manufacturers should make . their cigars longer in the lo~er and medium price ranges t _ han tl: ( ey are now being made~ JCamJ fac turers in other sect ions of . the country are offering . longer cigars r or t p. e same price as the Tampa companie ~ s . It is r'3al1 zed that tne T~pa plants jould . face higher labor c oets if , this were done under the p resent labor scal es , but ao;me sort pf arrangement should be work~d o ~ t with the . upions t . o permit the production of the same size ci g ar . a at the same labor . cost as in c~11pet1ng plants. . Other w ise , t he sa:J,.e~men marketing Tampa-made ciga~ s face a serious . handicap . . ' . . In corineetlon wl th the . effective se+l in g ~f ci g ~rs, there la o ne condition . iti the indui(t~y that sh9uld be corrected. Cigar . dea lers, . both whol~sal~ and .ret ti, 11, do not pay . suff1 . cient . attention to keepiJ?,g 1 the ci gare in the proper .cot;tdi ' t . ion. They are allowed to dry . o ~ t, . i nstead of bein g kept moist . and :fresh . A ~igh qualit~ ci g a r, sellin g f o~ a hi g h p rice, may prove a disappointment to a . . . . . . . . . ' .. . . J .

PAGE 94

' . . . . ' . ' . 82 ' . . . . . . , . ' . . . I . . . . ' . purcha~er if it , ls stal& ' . Th e manuf,-cturer . of this ci gar ~ . who p robably .. devoted a lot or e , rfort to inauri~ 1 ts li1gh. qualityâ€¢ . woulq. very 1 i1:cely suffer fr.om . 1 ti, poor condi t~on _. when it .. reached . t~1~ consumer. Cigar m an"ll:fa~trers . ~ould . pay m9re atte ntion to th is m~rchan.d1sing : problem. . . . . , : ... : . . . ' ' ' 4 Labor Relations. . ' . . . . ' . g , ' ' I ;, .. I . . . On~ o r the . thi~gs . t h at : ~as ~etar~~d . t.h~ . cigar indust . r_y .' or .. Tampa has been the coi::itinual arang;J.ing between the w . drkera . an.,. . .. thf:' employers . Point _ s . or difference betwee~ th:ein have ari _ aen c~n . s tantlr, and i~ste ad of being settled _ I_)r~11 pt _ ly and sat~sfact~rily, have been . argued pro Eid con for weeks and .. months . . 'l'be longer ~he arging continued . the mor.e heated , it _ us\J.ally beca~â€¢â€¢ . until a _ oqn . . . a tr1vi _ al ~ gri~~~nce . a~swned . th e . propor tions of_ major . is.sue 1n . laboI' . relations. Prolonged' battles . have . been fought over mlnor . . . .. ' . ' differences . that should have been settled ~ortly a~ter . they ~rose, , . . . ' . ~s an example of the " t1JJ}.& n represen~ative !n t e plant, corriJ11only known as ~he"shop . . colle~~or" because he . collects ,inton dues 1~ the plant. :ici~ denta11 y , the . term . shop coilec~or sh~u.ld . be _ changed to anQther denoting a la~ger sphere of . activity than m~fely collecting union : dues. Tb.is individual is the repr esentative of the unions in . the plant, ~d he . should have t~e authorl tJ' to ~esist 11.1 t4e settle. men~ of plant dispute : s, when end where the d~sputee ~e~ur. This : pranpt aettle~e nt of . differences 1~ the plant~ . st the time of . their ~ccurrence s}:i9uld g . o a long way toward eliminat~ ~ .me jor . .. source (?f . fr1~ti on bet . ween , workers and _ empl s,-ers tt . . . 'l')le _. quest1on . might . be , asked a , s to wh _ at proc . edure c QUld pe . . . . . . . . fo~l ow~d 1~ ca~~ -. the part1~s were 11~able t . o agree in the pla~t , . â€¢. ~oncerning the s _ ettiement of . the a1~pute . In such a ~1~ua~1 on . Where the co . n~rovera, coul~ . not be settled . it?t~e plant 1n . twenty~ four . hours ' 1 t ehoul4 be s~ . nt .. to regul~:1' . empl . oyer-8lllpl07ee boa~ set up to handle disputes .However) it is hoped . that a :. genuine effor. to s ettle such ma t . ters in.' the plant would be . made. . Jlajor is ues. that . might come up b etween the worke" and rwnu, ' . . . . . facturer . ~ s~o~ d . be . 1;1ett led as speedily ~s ppesible oy ~he _ joint )oard ~s ta'bli . s ed for . that pv.rppse. Bo tH . or these par1;1ea owe . it ' . . . to _ their . reape t1ve groups . ~a . to , the 1nd11stry to mainta1 n . . fimlca ble relat'ione and _ adjus t difficulties rairly and .. promptly. .. : .. . . I~ is ~r:u~ ted ~hat the , se d1tferene~s w111 always be settl,d ... w~ ~hout recouJ'se to any .outsi4e ~genCJ Howeyer, to . take care . of a po~ , sib~e . s itti.a:tion ~n which ~n issue had not been settled, 1t ' . is re~~l!>ended that aey .. con~r!lversy betw~ei;i th . e . employers . and em. ' tb .e two . ' . ' . , . . ' 'â€¢ . ' . ' . . . . ' . ' . . . ' \

PAGE 95

. . . . . .. ' . . ' ' . . REcoâ€¢â€¢ENDA1IONS FOR. . THE CIG~il . INDUSTRY OF TJ .. P.A .. 81 . ' . . . . ' . ' .. . ' . . . . . . . . . t rties, who agree OD one . , . it pos sib . le . It no . agreenlflnt is , reachedâ€¢ t ch party is . instructed to cross ot the pames o,t ail) ~arsons obJ cted to and to ~er the ;re111aining onea 1n order ._. o.t p:reter~oe. ~om these r~mainltig nam11a th~ ~ppoin tmenb . ia ~ad . â€¢~ ._ . .. . In the Tampa cigar indua tryit â€¢au.ld . be advisable to have 1 agr-eement prov1d1ll:8 that, pendi~ the heai;ing ~ the : ~aae and : t e d . ec1s1on ot the arbitrator, there aho-.d be no l'ockout by a~ 1ploy~r .or stri)ce ~~lled b7 the uni.oils.; . . _ ' . . . rn conriect1on w!th the proposed mod ernization of the cigar ldustry . ot Ta1 11 pa, it . is believed that an agroement should be . ~ de providing _ tha t old workers _ 1~ the pl~ts 1;>e given pre-ference t tbe as sigiaâ€¢â€¢ent ot wot-kers to new proeesae s. For : the1~ part, l Ch old woricera .. _ should give : fu~l ~d complete . iooperati~n . to _. the 1 w proc~sses .. . . . . _ . . .. : The situation in the . "Pampa cigar plant s by which th _ e work . ha a . 1 en . s . taggered, or apre~d out among more workers than . are necessary, 1 not . . satisf~ctorJ rt i s not satisfac : to~y to _ the woJ-kers _ , a _ s _ it . , sults in smaller pay for them . . Neither is it . satisfactory to the L ployers, a~ . _ the surplulli workers 1nc:rease ~h&ir co s ~s. _ _ . . It 1 s no t advocat~d that this practice be ab ' olishe . d i11n11ed:iate . , as th is would work a severe hardship on . those w . orkers havi;ng , be di scharg~ . Beither is it ~dvocated _ the.t the practice be . intained indef~nitely. _ It is unsound economically, working a . . rdship on bo . th ~or1:ters_ and employe:rs~ ~d sliould be . cha nged as . , on as 1 t is practical to do so .. As . soon . as th~se . surpl~s employ i s can be gi. ven poai tiona in the cigar pl~nts where they . a re. . 1 eded, or as soon as the7 can find ~mployment in other industries. . : e pra~tice 0 spreading . the wo~k in th~ Tsmpa cigar plants should disc . ontinued . . . Wag~ Rates. . . . . ' . . . Th~ prob lem .o~ wage rates in the . Tampa qigar industry is canred largely in the old . Cartabon, or : schedule . or .-age rates dra...wn 1 in 1~io and _ still use4 by the indust;ry, whioh _ waa &XJ>la~ned in rt s I arn IV. . . . _ It i _ s felt . t~t _ this ol~ . pri~e s~ale . ha:s outlived its . 1 _ 1seful ~ _ as and is now a handicap to the cigar ' industry, . in~tead . o~ . lp. No allows.n . ce is made in the Car tab on for ch . '-n g ed econ-omic ndi tior;is, changed pl'oduQtio n or market conditions, or a ny : changes the _ count _ ry , th~ coDDlliln1 ty , or the . indu~tcy. . . . . . _ , No . othe:r example o~ an industry . so . res _ tric:ted as to labor ra:tee ' kno1'?1. It _ is th e practi _ ce . of industries ~n this country to ha~ ei r labor scales sufficientl~ rlexible to b~ able to . meet chang g con di t1on~ Both _ th~ --. â€¢~rkers and t _ he . JJlanagem~n~ benefit by ch a policy. The . selling pr ice df a coJttpeti t~ ve product should . . e.y a ba~ic part . in the de'.t;erminat 1on of its . labor cost. Where is principle is ignored an unso,md conqition exist,. . Cigar manil.factureri,' in areas o . ther than Tampa, who ar~ . c _ a,i ti tors . ~t the Tampa producers, do not have a ' fixed labor : scale ~e the Cartabon . to o ont end with. The rates ror :. 1ndiv1dual air.es . . . . . ci be changed with changing conditions, which . is an advantagf' -~o t h ~orkers arid employers. . . . .. . It is reconn11ended tha . t the u:se of the Cartabon . be d1scont1:nued t~e Tampa cigar induatey, and in its pia~e ther~ be substi~uted r 1ex~~le wage . agreement, nth rate.s based largely on the -' se lling i. ces of the individual cigars . cona j.: deration be tn g given t o . the :mnt o _ f 1abor 1nvolv~. This wage sca+e should be subject . to rt iatlon, 1n 1 t~ entirety or acco.rdi _ ng to the indi v:idual slzes, _. mutual agr.eement of the ~nufa~turers and the unions . , on~e each l r. This practice is followed by . many large industries. :New ~e e ahould be perinl tted at atty time w1 th r-a tes determined in the ~ egolng ma:~er . Thâ€¢ introduction of this rat ~ systei11 . w . ould . be a ~ st help .t , o _ the Tampa cigar industry. _ ' ~not}ler probl8Jlt .. 1n rates in th~ _ Tmnpe area that neads eorrec>~ is the wide differential betwe . en the . Hava'na mold and shade .. .. . . â€¢, . . ' ' I . . . . . ' . . . . . . . '

PAGE 96

.. â€¢, , ' . . . ' . . 94 . ' ' . . . . ' . . . ri,E , cfGitR INDU:STRYOB TAâ€¢PA, FioRIDA . , . ' '. . ' .,. . . I , . mold pro . ceases. Th~s . was expla1.ned in . Parj:s . I a~ II 11he:m 1~ fte : sh~â€¢n that the ditfer~ntial ,raa e . atab[j.a~~d beoai,e . of . the 4NDe to dis cdllrage the -q,se ot the mold when " it cam~ into .. pron 1 1nenfi in , Tarn pa sho~ 11 at~er ' 1~10, but did . not have th . is resu~ t. . . . . . The l~ b . or . :requireme rit for Hav&n~ ~old . (?igars is o~ly slightly . ' ' .. ( ' . . . . gr . eater than for . shade mold, which is caused by the shad e wrapper bei . ng a little . e~ _ sier. tQ work . with~ but the . re 1 _' 8 . n~t enough _ difter enc . e to ju~tify the present wide di.fferential in rates . It is .. recor~ended 1-bat the pre . sent ~ates .. ror : H~vana . mo ~~ cigars be dia..: . continued, and . a rt ew s ' ce,le or rates : tor Havana m . o . lq, be fixed at 10 per c _ en~ . a~ove those f . or shade .. mQl~ ci . ga rs.. .. : -~ : . .. . The . foregoing ~eQompiendation . a oonc ' ern+ng . wage r~tea .in the Tampa clga~ lndustry ~ave been predica~ed op the assmption that . . tn:e p ' iece re. te sys~ e~ tor â€¢. cigar making be retained in th~il industry, ... .. . _: . . .. . . .. ... . . .. . Does 1 t necessarily have to be retained t Could not some . fQlJll of t ilpe wage sc ~1e , .with ~tated product , 1ori brackets to protect both worker and me nu.fact1.1P e . r, .. b e draw.a up, , which would be an 1m-i provem~nt over the p 1 ~ e~e rate . sys tem'l . worker l ~ould . ~e as~ed a st~ted wage . by this sys;ern, ~nd the ~tactur~r a u~itc,rin . pay: roll. ~der ~ch a systei:n the manufacturers could moder~l ze their plants, i natall new processes and pro~ote . effic 1ency in even. de partment. _ With a . sta~ed time â€¢age . guaranteed, the workers ~ould not be part1cul arly . concei;-ned about wage rates or the modern1z a-tion of the pl~nte. Th~s time â€¢age . i,ystem m~ght put an el)d bo the dis putes concerning . piece rates, : which have p1agued the 'l'h111pa cigar 1r:idustry 'for s . o long. ~: .. .. :. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . I I 6 Internal . Econcxnie . s in . the : : Plants . : . ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . Thel."e are a nmnber of . eco119D11es that ' should be . put into the f'ampa cigp.rpla~ts, if tb~se . ~re . ~ t o . b e op~ _ ra ted as eff 1cie . nt17 ~s . those . in other ~~inpet t ng cent~r~. . A: trip through some c;>f _ the , modern cigar plants up no;rth sho'1ld convince .. Tampa ffl:~fact,,reril a~ to the poss11?111t1es for ecc;,no1'!ies in _ the . 1r plant . a. : . 1 . . . It ,is reco11u1,ended that every cigar manufactut,er and f"ore111â€¢~ . . .. in 'J;'ampa . , toget~r ,rith .. ~evera1=, of . the : . mo , s~ lnte1-li gent workera in: . eac~ plant~ ~ go : on . ~n inspection t~1p tbFough :th.a foll , owlilg outs ~ tam 1ng cigar .. pla il t~ 1 ot~er. ~reaa: th:e .. two hand . pi or tl:M Ame r1,ean Cigar , , 1n Ti;-en~on. the Corona .. and '' Antonio and . Oleopatra; th . a thl'e ~ han plants : of D. ll~1n Cigar . Campany, . 1n : . : . New Yorlc,Tre~ton and Be . . Brunswick; :the long . f111er ~ :,e,mine p1ants : o , f the Bayuk .. Oigar Compaey and . the Cona611~a~e~ Ci : gar C-Qmpaey, tri Philad~lphia; . and . th~ . sho rt fille.r . macll:i~e plant . ~ . of the John . H . .Swisher and Son C 1gar Company 1:n .' Jackaonvill e, and the : Havatan1pa . Cig~r Company in Tanipa. A . careful inspection of all the ope . ra t . iona in . the~e plants .. would t _ each t~em a ~bout cig . ~r ma.nufact~ingâ€¢ : . A few improvem~nts . that are badly nee<1e~ 1n the . Tanipa plJltlt~ . will be treated . briefly. There ~re . others that are we11-krioan. rt is t)l.ough~ th~t the aec~vni;;irig ~ystems used bJ: the ~C41â€¢' pa.n1e s could be .. improv. ed . Ea ~h cigar ~~pan7 in .. T~pâ€¢ ahoul~ keep . accounting r~cords . . ,? . . ' . . ' . , . . . . .

PAGE 97

. .. . ,. 'â€¢ . ' . . . . . ' . RECOIâ€¢ENDATIONS FOR THE CIGA.R . INDUSTRY OF TAâ€¢P.A . . . . . 85 install this in eaeh plant~ : . . There is no adequet~ check on the mate~ial used in t h e Tampa plants , ~ as was shows.1 in Part II. The ~'lI'J;tppe~ ~ . ~d binders are . counted when issu~d ~O ~he cigaruakera, . but the . filler ~s not . wei gh ed. if' there ts muc;h C9.l:'elea~ness on the part of t he . c1gar makers 1n .. hand11ng . the filler tob e.cO(?, a serious loss can accumu. le. t e for the P lant over a period of time. . . _ Jn industrial plants or all kinds throughout the. U nited S~ates materials are clie . cked when issued . to t . he w:or~en. In . no:rthe . rn . cig ar pl ants all . ~ille~ issued to cigai'it,akera 1.s w~i gh ed. ~ They . r e ceive enough . for a stated quantity of . cigars, and if . t h e y are c ar e leas . a nd waste t, the ma tt~r is very evident. ~i .. s . reaul t , a in . c a re ~eing ~ak~n with the fil~er, as well (is the w1~al' l? ~ra .and b in d ers. All other Jn4iterial issued to . the workers in northern pl a n t : s is care.f'u.lly checked as well~ The lQa~ . f'rom waste :tobacco i s v~ry smal.l in these plants , whereas 1 t cons ti tut ea a consider ab l e item .of' cost J:or . the Tanipa plant~ . It is au &3 ested t h at T9JJ}p a ciga?' manuf'act~ers rollow t he practice of we1~ng ~iller anq: chec~ing all . ma~erial ia : sued to t h ~ _ wor~era. . It . would pe advisable . likewise to have a .. closer c h eck on t h e . t o ba cco in the processing stages . Th e tobacco c o uld b ~ handled 111o re carefully in the blendi _ n g , atri . pp in g , and casing o p er~ion s in the 'l'&DQ>tl pl ants . : . . . . In the efficient cigar plants i ri t h e nor th when the wr.appera . , . . a re stripped, the . rj_ght and left hand . leav . ea are kept . . in sepa . rate pads. The rollers are tr-aine . d to . use . e:tther a r i gh t hand or a l e f t ~d leaf. . Ha~.f of th~m Yl~k . on ri: gl1. ~ . hand . le av es an d h~l:f o n left 4land leaves ~ : In . tbi e . wa y t h ey acquit-a. more . spee . d and , a high e~ pr.oduoti vity than 1:f . they h$d to change . constantly .from one to . the . other. This is simply : a c as e â€¢. o:f the d i vision _ of labor p rincip~e being g iven a pr~otical application. . .'.. . . It is suggested that the plan of aep a rating th e right and . le.ft han d leav~a and hav~ng workers ro11 o~e or t h e other e xcl u siv~ly , b e followed . in tlie Tampa plants. . It was . shoâ€¢:r1 in Part II that in the p a ckin g o f cigars in . ~he Tam p a plants under the old Spanish system two worke~s are ~sed . One worker, '. called a picker,. separat e s th . e cigar s in:to a lar g e . numb er of pj;.les by col:,or, and t h e ot h er, lmow as a p a ck e r, p u ts . the m into the bQxes . _. This is . a very elaborate and expensi ,.re )?.ro cess , . as the m~nute subdiv1 sion o ' :f t l1 e c _ + g ars into more than . fifty . p il e s t~kes . much time. It . is not believed . th~t more tp.~ a. _ handfull . , ou~ o:f . thousands of cigar smoker s 1D: . the Uni te4 States, could tell the di.f.f ' erence between th~ majority of' thes . ~ aha des of c igars It was 11ke~~e shown in Par . t II that . ~ot h er s y~:tem of pack in g . lmowr1 as the American method, is . used in northern p l ant-s and by th e rna ohine ple _ nts of Florida. This proces~ : requires one . pack er ~ nstead of a picker ~d a packer, anq. ~as a -00s~ ab o ut one-thi~d tha . t Of the Spanish system. Th~ ci g ars are divided first into six : P il e s, afte~ w1:J.1c}1 they are further. subdi v ided by c . olor J:us t b~:for~ bei n g put in bhe .. b oxes. It is . : reco n anended that the . Americap. method 9f p acking be , used in the Tampa hand pl~ts. . . . The method of inspecting . oigara in use in the . Tampa plants is . . cos tly. . As was seen in Par . t . II, the cua . tom is .foll.oweC:t of having a . ev era1 . apecial , employees go around with E1mall trucks on which e : re . l ac ed several trays on raeks. At the end or each workin g day th~ se emplo y eee ool lec t the cigars ma : ne by eacp . workman hom the . orkbench~s, and _ t~e th~in to the i'(?:reman' S t ' able ' tor i . napection . . If any _ cigara are defec~ive~ _ the foreman will _ c~ll . this to th e attention o.f the wor~n rnakin g them. 9~ his regular round of h e ciga)?tt1ak1ng roopi, wl?-ich . is made t~e follow~ns day . Just prior o or attei, lunch. ~e foreman is not permltte . d : by custom to g o . r o und t:q.e workerj:I' benches but once a a.ay, and then he c annot stop t any: 1;ndividual worker's place qut . once. By thj_s system o.f in pe ctioi;,., a workman couid . make de:fect 1ve , ci g s.t-a . a: day and a h~1f e for.e t:qe :for~man . would exam1 n . e the cigars and . be allo~ed by u stom~ to call his ' attention to de.facts in them . . . .. . . . I PAGE 98 . .. . . . . . . 'â€¢ .. t ' ilECOJIJIENDATION$ FOR THE CIGAR INl)USTRY OF T.AIP1 . . . . . r . . a'I ' . an a ve~age of $400 000 11nn,1allj for the past ~ 13 years . . At a t _ ime when the maJo~ . ty Of the plants are ' barely a~le _ to keep goine;, tnis wou1~ s~enr to ~e an unreasonable and lUljustifiable expe~~e . It is reco:rumended that smoking in the . TamFa . plants in working hours; exo-ept in the rest ro~s,. . b . e prohibited, as is done 1n the n orthern cent~~a. ,. The rest _ room excep~ion .from tpe non-m11oking rule would perm,1t employees who are addicted t . 0. smoking to . have sever~l smokes : a . d-.y without vi . ola:ting ~ the rule. ,. The workers should not b e permitted to make . any clga~s for personal consiimp:tion with t . he plant's tobaco o. This non-s~oking rule is advpoated to reduce .. an unnecess&ry cost for the companies and . to el iminate t~e fire hazard iri . the pl~nts. : . . . , . . . It is likewise recClr1,rr1ended that the present ~ee smokers given to each male worker be reduced fr0111 tl:lre~ . , daily to one dailyâ€¢ to't eev:eral yeara; and then the p:racti;ce be . discontinued entirely. The one ~ee oiga r wotia.d g1v~ each worker an after dinn er smoke. ,. This t~pering off _ of the si,aoke~ pra~tice iroulndemned. In some instances the oi.ga~s might be ~ta.ined. or disool~e . d. The pra~tice like . wise has the tendency 9t rea . cti~ againa~ . orderl'-n~ss _ in the plant _ , and possibly o~ . _ encouraging slovenlinea : s and careless work. I ' In . efficient ~erican plants the ' employees separate their work ti-om outside diversions, giving serious atten~ion to it while they ai-e _ on duty. This increases th~ir productivity and likewise th~i~ mo~al~ and self-respec~, as they . feel that they . are rendering an eftici~nt . service 1n return for their wage~. .. . lt is augge.sted th~t the s~le of merohanalse or admission tlck -' ets or solicitation of any kind 7 b . e prohibite . d in the . Tampa plants. I . t is felt that the disc _ iplin-e in the Tampa: hand cigar plants c . ould be improved oons ~derably~ w . i th ~enef ' 1t both t . o the . workers and _ thecompanies. . . . . . . . :. . . . . ' . . . . 8 Customs : Apprais al of Tobacco~ . , . . ' . ... The oigar menu.t'acture:rs of Tampa have faced a problem . for sOJne 711ars in the importation of t obacca from Cuba. This is .. d11e . to faulty cuetpma regulations~ which shouid be chansed . This situ~1tfon was explalne~ in P.,rts . I and v ot this Report. . . It waa . seen that when Hayana tobac _ co is imported from Cuba . ~ the wrapperand , tiller ar~ mixe ~ d together in the : same ba~e, and .. tha t the cuat01:Ds regula . tions . pro . vide that the cust0ms insI>,ect9r appraise the tob~cco . and deterrnine the respe-ct,ve amo~t s of' . wrtt.pper and .r 111er in each bale . As the 1mpo1't duty on _ wrapper . tobac co is$1.20; ~hile tha : t on tiller is . only . $. 28 . , this c1a ssification plays an impo _ rtant port . 1 n determiiling_ . the tot~~ duties and cast of' the . 1mpor1;ed tobacco to the irenufacturecrs . -. : . . . . . . . . The dr~st~o . par~ of t~e regulations which provides . ~hat where a s much ~s 35 p er c . ent of the tobacco . in a bale is a p praised as wrlip per , the eriti~e b~le . ~akea a 100 . per cent w1appe:r ctu ty, has resulted .. . . . .. ' . . PAGE 99 . . . .. . . . . ' . ., . . ... ' . . . I . . " . . ' , ( . as ~, . . . : , ~ THE CIGAR 1 ' N.DUSTRY OF . TAlf PJj :, FLORIDA . . .. . . . . f .. . , . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. ' . . . . . , ; ... .. 1n many unfair cases of excessive taxation~ ~" . . . . As t;her~ is orily a difference . bf degree or te~e b . etween per a~d :filler t obacco . , .. t_he d , ivf:ding line betwe~n the . two ' is a que 8 . tion . of .. j~dgtnerit .. It is niatt~r of . t'ecord. that different c11stonis ~ppr~ise~s have d1f,fered ,-~dely 1n their class1f.1c~t1o~ _ Qf wrd.pper e.n~ fi~ler tobacco~ .. In view of _ the 1 great . di:rference in . tne cus . t0Ill8 rates . for the ~o, tne present p'ractice appe . ars to gi . v . e too muc h . .authority to the 1:nspectors , and . perm~ts . a great _ 1 _ neq~a~1ty in tax. . atâ€¢on * ~. ,â€¢ I 'â€¢ . . . . It is rec9~11ended tha~ ~bl~ ~thod _ or ' appraising ' _ imported . t9 . _ . bacco e cha _ nged to a : more practi~~l an . d equi t able sy~tea1, _ 11nder . . . . . . . . I , . I . . . I . . . . . . â€¢' .. which du~ ies woulc;l be paid only on the amount . ot wrapper actually . :tmpo:rt~d, and the . wrapper ' classification Qf tobacco, . ~n the matter of qua _ ll ty, would correspond with t-rade usage. . . : .. . . . . ' . ' f : 9 Conao . i1d~t , : on . of" . Compani es. ,' _ _..: .. . . . ' .. ; . . , . . I . t 1s believed that there a . re many ways in whieh ._ the T~â€¢aapa cigar plan~s could work together to the m11tuel ~dvantage ot all . . Th~re are certain ma ter1als and supplies : whi~b all the ... pJants . need . . 1n their oper~t ions These m'ight be pur.c _ based jointly. at a .'_ sav~ . ing . t9. all the plants. Possibly . some of th~m 9ould be pr.oduced . . . econ()ni1 cillly by the group _ of ~a nlPa. plahts, at a cona . idt,rable sav' f ,. , . ing. Tobacco might _ . be . purcha~ed . jointly by the c . o-,,_,apsnies~ Transpo~ : tation costs might ,. be ~terially . reduced by jqint shi~ents .of cigars .Some . effort ha . s . beeri . mad~ . to do this 1n re. ga:x,C,. to Pacific . co a~t shipments. A trf'ight car wa s _ sent .(1â€¢onâ€¢ T~ to the _ West Co~.s t, n . th pel'fiti~sto~ to unload at . di.tferept cities en rout~. It was reported . that . a considerable s aving was effected o~ ., thes e _ shi.pments . This shou1d ~e follo~ed up lltil a practi?al 1 . , method or . handling . joint s _ hipments bas been worked out tor ~ll 1 -markets, within tbe regulations or : the Intet"state 001,u,aerce Co1,misâ€¢ . sion. , . Joint credi . t f'a~111:t1~s might, b e . ~ITd.riged for the Ta1+Q;)8 c 1gar . companies, reducing their financing costs. . . . . Th~ resources of the ~ompan1 es might be pool~d in va:rious waya j . which would . pe he1p~l . and advan~9:geo lie t,Q a:11. . . . 1 . ~e foregoing . ~s . iness cooperation sh0'=1ld be ot_ vale to .. all j the ~ompaniee.. . Howev~r , . it is ~ugge ~ted that the 1ntercompany reâ€¢ 1 lat~_pnah1p gP . ~l)er . th.an bus~ : ness . coopera _ tio~~ It is be11eved tba t 1 . t would b _ e def'in1 . tely . to the ~dvantage of some of the emalle . r 1 c : iga~ pl-ants or Tampa . to have out~ight consol1dat16n .. w1th o~her I . plantsâ€¢ . Some of . th~~e smaller p1 ants e,re st ruggling . aiong, ha : rtng . d:1 : ft~culty fu msktng a small pr9f~t, _ or suf .fering a lose.. T.he.1r . sales have shrunk, . and .. their . pro<;'iuct 1on is . not as ef:f1c1ent as it might be, due p~rt~y to ins:ufficient .funds ,with ~ich to . keep t~eir plant . in f'irs t-c1ass condi ti'on. . . . . . . . . , If same : qt these companie . a . ~ou . ld coiisol~date, it 1111gb , t ~ean . an . 1ncreaa~ in se: . ies, as . their c01â€¢lfflon sale~ rac111 ties ~ould be incr&a . sed .. It ~tght 11~ewiae mean . a reduction .. in production cost, . and increas . ed produc tive ef'fici~i;iey , tnrougp -. the pooling o~ joint . faqili ties ~ ove~ead costs wouid be reduced greatly . . . So . me . or the . Tamp a cigar . companies are : too small for the most . , . econo . n11 . cal operat ion. . It . is believed . that these plants and the Tampa industry ,rould be EJtrengthened b y a . nirrober of cons : o~ . idation s int . o lar g er ~1 ts . , . . .. . . . . . 10 _: welf'are Work . , ... . . . . ' . . . . ' . ' . . . . . . . . . . . Much cou~ d be done 1 n the . .'~a,,,;pa cigar . pl~ts . in improving g en eral conditions affecti _ ng . health and _ COD1fort . . . . The ven:tilation a~d e.~ r circ 11 l~tion in _ ' practic~:\,ly all of them could be improve . d. The 1 1' .; ht~ .; rac~litie s ' i n many : of the pl~nts are npt as g ~od as . they sh~uld be~ S~e of. th~m . present a dingy ap~earanc~ inside and it . . . . .. . . . . . . . . PAGE 100 . . . . o I .. . . . . . =. RECOMâ€¢ENDAT101($ FOR TIIE CICAR INDUSTRY OF . TJâ€¢PA , . . ' .. 89 . . . . . . . is wondere~ if the interiors o f the . Tmnpa " pJen~s could no:t be pa.inted a light color, to improve their li ghti _ ng and gene.-ral appe&rance. The seats . used . by tlle workers . might be cJieclted ' to see il thet, are . a.a c01nf~rtable as thfltY should be. Ice _ iater ahauld ' be a vailable t;o a 11 ~ the workers in t.he . P . lant-s . .. Th~ ze : str~ should be clean and . ~anitary'. Where it is praetical to do so, a . c~ _ c~etei-:la id.pt be ilista~led in . t _ he . la~e:r P . ~~nts an4 l'Un~ea ~en.ea a.t coat to the workersâ€¢ . . : . . . . . . . .: Steps . taken tq 1.nipro:ve the . p~ants . ~n 1 the .foregoing msnn1.tr, aid a o proin~te . the heal th and , oomf ort 6.t th~ _ work'9:rs . r , or both . b1.1mane and _ business reasons. Indu~trial ~orkers ~re .. entitled to : satisfactor,wor.~ c~ndit~onsi an~ th&ir _ work . should be more produot1ve under , s ch c nditions. . . . . . :J:t . is rec . ende~ tha~ a r~dio be placed 1n each Ta~11)a . cigar plant. 1tith reception outlets : on each fl(\lor where there are _ grou,pa . of wot-k~i-s. Cllem in the surplus . ci gar workers now . in the Tampa . . distric tâ€¢ According t o e~t1mates made in Par~ V , _ there are s.ssa s _ urp l~s . .cig ar workers in Tampa. . "' . . . . _ _ These 5,-688 ciga r wo~kers ~onst1tute _ a big p~ob1:~â€¢ At the present t1me ~he ciga r companies cannot employ any more o~ t hem becaus~ or the ~tate of the1r bus1ness. : It is possible that with the modern1zat . 1on of ~heir plants reaul.t _ ing _ in reduced c9sta, and inc _ r.eased adv~rtlsing and sa~es e.f:fort . s_ the l;>usin~ss of the plants would tend to increase. . Tnis would mean more jobs . for s ome . of the workers . . ~owever; 1:t . is not believed that the cigar com panies o.f Ta1,ipa wil1 b~ able to give emp~oyment to ~11 of. the surplus cigar workers for many years t . o eome ... if at all . A trend .. toward semi-mechan1zat19n Qf part of the T~mpa cig~r industry and complete mech~riizat1on of part of it :ts lQoked for. . If the cigar wor~ers would learn the senii-mecbsnized p~ocesses. and be recon ciled to th~; ~h~r:e might be steady work at good pay for number~ or . tp.e old workers in the years to _ oome . If th _ ey are unwill~DS to do thi~, the unempl~yment . s 1 tuati<>n will gi,ow worse . _ .. Very fe~ apprentices are being tr~ined 1n the plants, s9 the tot _ al nUJJ1ber of ciga r . w-orkers is gradua:J,17 ~ecreasing. . The young Latin boys and girls are . going into o _ ther lines. , . _ It is suggested that ~ac111t1e~ be pr~vided ~o train the . young Latin boys and girls in trades and voc~tions. ~t bas been mentione ' d in Part V tha t at the preset;\t tinie there is one indua ... . . . . , . .

PAGE 101

. ' . . 90 e I l . . ' . : THE . CIGAR INDVSTlllOF _ TAâ€¢PA . FLORID~ . ,., . . . . \ . . .. . ' . I . . . ' . \, . . . . . . trial training . school: in Tampa _ , .. tbe Brew,te~ School ~ , ol)61eated by the ~1 t7 _ s cllool . s7s tenâ€¢" . Pe'rhapa st~pa c~d b~ taken to put . . .. courses 1n this . scJ}oo1 t~t would bf> particularly adaptâ€¢ble to . . . . ~tins~ Or~ possi'bly : e.f.fo~ts coula be made to start . another train ing ' schoo1 , specifically . foJ' :the~wâ€¢. . S01ethi11R should be . done along these lines, so that. the Latin fam111ea coul _ d bflv . e oocupationa . other than ciga1,,king op which to depend . . . . â€¢. In this connec . ti:on an . idea : occurred in ' the course of : the sur. vey that . migl?.t have merit. In the . ut 1n countries ~ near the United s tates, a great ~t th~ . p . eopi~ . ar~ ~aged 1n l>a,nd1c~a.ft _ work, , making basketQ _ and wi . ~ker .art~cles; carved . woo~en box , es and , objects, pottery _ and , pottery~ware, hand-tooled leather work, tancy beaded . . articles, ~ass slipper s, str,w hats, . _ fine needle :..workâ€¢ dre~ses and , articles ot cl~tping, and ni~eroua . novel:,tie s , . toy~ . an~ . tr:1nkets. . These articles have . a r . a re appeal to tourists. . If a produc t ion center for th e:m cou.1d be es . t~blished in . Yb!Jr C 1 ty . it might give . employme~t t _ o . a nl1mher of people .. there, ano. o _ e Qf' considerable valne : in ~educing unemploymentâ€¢ . . . . . . . . . ' In connection . with . this, a sectiqn of Ybor Cit -' y might b . e con~ structed to ,;-e~resent a typical Cuban t _ own, .. and be ~owa as the : "Cuban Qar ter â€¢u~henti / c euban ' arch . 1~ecture, interio~ deco-rat' ing of ~O!,lses, ~1t~ . e, , C?lothing. ~ cuet01â€¢J~ry mode of living _. could be shewn. Cuban . patios and gardens;. . 1'1 th . fount11na . and r1ow~~s _ , woul:d add a t ouc;h of beauty. p 19ture~ portraying a~e11es of _ Cub~ wquld lend reali-,m. Articles of siglnificance in Cuban History or ~e set~lem:ent of : Q:ubans . 1ri 'i'~uâ€¢p~ would pe :: of inte~eâ€¢t. 1.r cal!'etully planned and construct~d by canpetent per~ons, the Cuba~ Quarter of . n>~r . City cou14 b~ ~ade famous. . Sca~tered throughout t _ he Quban Quarte:IJ could be shop~ in . which the handmad~ novelties would be . _ 9ffered for sale. Likew ise, _ there ,amid be cafe s . serv:ing Cuban . . . . .... drinks . ana :food, ~ and places ofentertaiilment f _ or tourists.! . ' I . . . .. .. .â€¢ . . The combination of a prod~ction . center for h0:n(111sde Latin novelties, .-and a genuine e:ub an Quarter, shou ld make . a big appeal to -visitor.s in Florida .. 'rour.ists . trom all over the state and t"rom . many par:ts . of th~ Uni t~d . state _ s might ~e . drf:lWil , _ to Tampa . to se ' e ,i'hat . S: Cuban . city !las J.ike a:np. _ buy s(}1r1e of _ the handmade articles tor . . sQuveni~s . . . T.h~ French Quarter in New Orlea~s dr~ws thQusands of visit~rs to that city each . ye~r . The Cuban Qua~ter of Tampa l!light do the same for this c 1 ty~ : . . .. . . Per~ps the Federal Governnient . m!ght len(l 1 ts aid ~n the pro jec ts just described.The .. City of ~&1ripa ~hould ~nvestigate this proposal . to d~tel"rxiine the ; ad . visability (?f carrying it out . , . , . Anothe~ S'U\gge~tion for the : problem o : ~ ~ueylus . ci g ar ~orkers _ in Tampa, whi ch :is ~ ~ot a new 1 . dea, ~ is t : ~ . br _ i . ng , in _ ot~e~ industrie s whi . ch . would . absorb them. . Efforts e.r _ e a+~ . eady nder. way to br1ng . text1 1e plants t o _ the ci ' t7., whic~; if succ . ~sa.ru.1,:will . :give em.. ployme nt . to .a . n\1mb~r of . Latin ,rpr.kers, ch ief~Y wo~en. fer~ps . , . a t e xtile production c~nter employing Latins, c~n . be buiit up in ' Tampa. The canning industry 11i1ght al~ o fii:id ~amp a a good lo9ation 1n w:h1c}?. ~o utilize the f'rui ~s and . vegetabl:e s qt . Cent . ral Flo~ida. Tampa is shippi~ a la~ge vQl1nne of ph(?Spbat~ to north f, rn plants where 1t . is us ed . 1ri the msnUfacture of fertilizer . A g :ricul:ture ' in Florida . requires : much ferti~izer . and l?uys . rr.qs , t of 1 t" fi'om \~ t~e . . nqrthe _ rri pl . ant : ~ _ whieb ha:ve ~de t iarge+Y with Floricla pbos ~ t~ . Fertilizer plants _ tp ut1iiz~ Florida ' phosphate m+ght be . established .. in '.)1ampa,near . 1 ts . P~oduc~ion ar.~a . As ~ug~r cultivati(>n is b ' eing . carx-ieC, o~ very S"\lccessfully . in s outh _ ern Fl~rida, there might be opportuni~ies 1'.'o:r ~Ugar products indus~ries in ~ampa, or plants . to ut1-lize the by-prod~cts such as ce . lotex, al~ohol, . puip, etc . , Oth e . r 1.ndustrfea in . many . 11:nes _ might be br~ght to _ Tampa . to he .lp .. . solve this problem. .. . . . . , : . . . Industr+es suit~ble fqr uriemployed Lati~ cigar . workers ~e chiefly those requi~ing dexter1 ty ' of' hand and riot much rnsnue.1 . . . . . _. strength. A co11certe~ -s. nd sus~ _ a . 1ne':3, effort sbould __ b . e m~ ~e by Tam .. pa e _ i vie~d psine . ss .~ interef;Jts, and the city officials; to draw , suitable . industries to Tampa, ~o abs~~b the pres en~ unem p loyed, .-. . ' ' . I ..I . .. . . . ' I ' ' . . I I . I I O ' . ' . '. . . , . . , ' . .. . . . . . ' . I . ' ,

PAGE 102

. . , ' .. . . . .. . . . . . . ... RECOMMEN[)ATIO _ NS FOR . THE CIGAR IN1JUSTRY . OF TAJIPA . , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 91 a n d at the . same time br . ing _. more business to tl1 .' e city. It is sug _ ..,. e sted that ~fforts . along this 1 1~e. be cen~ered in one capable . . roa n, and he be giv~n -. adequate work . 1n g facilities and support. . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Unity and : Cooperation. . . . . . . . . . In this list of' recommendatic;,ns for the ci g ar industry of' Tampa there is one _ tha t should have .. a p~o m inent plaee. J:t has been . p 11 t la.st for . emppasis ~ The whole Tamp . a ci g ~ industry needs gei:i u ine unity ~n~ _ complete and whole-hearted cooperation ~mong the v a rious g ro~p . s comp:ri sing 1 t, and the pub . lic of T . a?rj.pa. . .. The man~f!3. : cturers n,eed . t9 . ~ ork with eac h other , a nd not at . _ c ross _ purposes. They :r;ie : ed t o f~e~ -: a spir _ it of' unity ,ivith e _ ach other an d stand t ogether; assistin g :_ the _ othersin mat t~rs pertaining to p lant mana 3 _ ement and entrepreneurial p ro b lems. The workers need to realize t hat they have a conn n on int~rest w ith the ~nuf~cture~s i n ._ tbe pr9 : sperity of . t h e companies. Unless th ese c _ an be operateg. profitably, there wil:l not be many jobs a vailable or sat,-sfact ory wa g es for any 0 ne connec ted with the in _ dustry . If . unable to make any prof"its, the m anu:f~cturers pii ght . . e ven close t heir businesses or move S. WfJ.Y . -. If sub j-ected . to too m uch :Lndustri~l strife they mi ~ t do the s _ ame . thin g . .. The manufacturers like\tvise need to realiz . e . that they have a . co n unop in terest with t p e \ v o;rk _ ers in t1 1 e p lan t s. Th~y _ could not o perate their plants without competent work~rs. They. should try t o adopt a sympathe tic and un d erstandin g attitude where the worke rs ~re c oncerned; and _ deal \V i. th them as ' fairly . as p _ oss ibl~. Thf;3 . publ . ic of Tampa should feel a pride a nd certain aff . ection f or the . oldest and mo~t im p ortant industry, ot t~e city . The cigar , i n q:U:s t _ r:v has meant a lot for Tampa; and not many y e ~s . ag o . 1 t was _ the -. object of pride of every Temp _ an . ae ~ wa _ s proud or the industry then, , and did _ not hesitate to let the w9rld know that he . w:as fron 1 Tampa, the c:iga~ center. Now that the industry _ has faJ.len up-0n evil days, th~ Tamp . ans should not go back .. on It. It needs their. support at present more than ever, . and they should assist it at every O~PQrtunity~ Concretely, it would . help a . lot if eve ry cl tizen of' Tampa . ' wo1:1ld tell ~iends and ~cquaintances : i n o . ther pla ces about the fine quali ti~a of . ~ampa-ma~e cigars; and persua _ de them ~o t:ry smoking some. . A good many qf the l ' OO,OO o residents of' Tampa get away f're. quently, and if' this suggestion were a . ~ted on 11 terally 1 n an : en thusi astic manner, : a great deal could be . accomplished for the . Tampa cigar indu stry. Tampa sn:i()kers other than the plant employees _ might also tcy smoking T . empa-made cigar . a . ... The cigar i n~ustry ~eeds t h~ support of' every ci t ~z~n o r Tampa. . . The opinion pas ,. b~en exprE)ssed in Tan:ipa that . the cigar Indus . try of the. city _ is d . oomed, This opinion is hot concurred in b y . t . he . ~t hqrs of this Report. _ . .. . , . It . is be_liev.ed t~at if â€¢. the Tampa c igar industry will modernize its plants an~ ~ .' nst _ all ~cono?Qies, . forget :t.ts ~ld customs, adopt effective advertising ang : selling me . thods, atjd hav.~ its various g roups work t ogether ' harmoniously and cooperatively, 1 t . yill face a promising future . ~f it is too s~or.t sighted ~r stubborn tq do these _ things, the future is doubtful . ., ' ' . . ' . . .. . . . . ' ' . ' I . . . . . ' . .â€¢ . . . . . ' . , . . ..

PAGE 103

'â€¢ , . , â€¢' ' . ' .. , ,. ' . : ' I I 'â€¢ . ' . . ' ' ' â€¢, . . . . . .. I .. . ' .. I 'â€¢ . .. ' '. ' . , ' ' -. , .. I , " .. .. ' . . ' .. ... .. ' ' . I . . ' .. ' .. .. .. . '. ' 'â€¢ . . . , . ' ' ' . ' .. . ' ' ' . . \ I .. ' '. ' . . . , ... ' . ' ' . ... . " . . > ' ' . . . . ' ' . .. ' . .. . . .. ' . , . ' ' ' . ' ' . . ' ' . . , . " 0 . , . . . , .. ' . ,. ' . . . . .. . . ' .. . ' . ., . . . ' . . . . ' , '' > 4 . . .. . . ., .. I ' . . . .... , . . . . 'â€¢ ' ' . . ,. .â€¢ ..

PAGE 104

':I . . . . . . .. I ., . . . ' . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . .. . . _,,; Ame~~pan N~wspaper P, ) bl1shers 1 Assqclation, Bureau of Adv~rt1~1ng, Unpubl~s h ed da\;a , August, 1939, . ~ew . York . . . . . . Annual Report,For . ~he Year 1938 1 M~rch, +939 Cigar Manufapturera' . . . . Associ~ t ion of ' Amerlcai Inc.~ Ne,r ~o~k. _ A nnual Report or the Commi ss19:ner of Internal ~e venue, 1863-1938 BUreau of Internal Revenue, Washington. . A n nual Report on Tobacco Sta t ist1 cs;, 19.38 1 St ati ~tical Bulletin No. . 67 . .Bureau . ot: _ Agrio ' ultu~al Economic~, Washing . ton. Arenco Machi , ne Company~ Statement From Compa . ny, New York, 19 . 39. da rtab . on 1 . Effec~i 11e September . , 19 . 34, Tampa~ Florida. . "The . cl ga;r ~nd 'l'obacc o Manu~s.cturi _ ng tndue . try in T~pa, Florida" .. . Pa:rt . 5, Vol _ . 15 of Reports of the Titrmigra t ion . Co1rur1lssion, 1911, . Washingtonâ€¢ " . . . , . . . : . . . The Cigar Industr, and the Tariff; Report No. ~ 62, 193~. . United States Tariff Comr~issi on, Washington~ The Oigar, Indust.1' of Floi-1da 1 June, J,.955 :Peter c. Si;agiione, University o F'iorida. _ . . . . Cisar Makers After the . Lay:..Off 1 ~ece~b~r, 1937 . Dan i e:1 C;reerner and Gladys V . Swackha.rn.er , Works . Progress Administration. Wash. ington . . . . . . .. Cigarmakers, _ Official Journal; l~00-1923 . 1939. Cigarmakers 1 _rnt~rnatio~l U:nion, Was~ington. . . The Cigar Manufacturing Indust17 t 19:55 _ Rus sell H~ Mack, . Univer . alty "of PeDD:syl v~ia. . . . . Th e . Cigar Manufacturing . ' IndustI~Y 1 . . Augus:t, 1935 . C . J . McM~nus, . ~a tional Recovery Dl:v:lslon of Review, Wash i:p.gton. Co 1nnient . on th:e Cliniate o f Tam a :flor . 1 da VI. Talbo tt, Uni tad . tates . Vie at er Bureau Of 1Ge, Tamp~ Chamber of Co1n1nerce Bulletin~ Temp~; . 1939. . . .. . . . . .Concessions Granted b the United State.a in the Trade . A reemeht the Kingdom 6f' the Net _ erlands, 19 6, United States . . Tarif.f . C011unission. . Gon s1.1mpti,qn and _ . Prod1 1 ct ion of Tobacco 1n Europe, T~chn _ ical Bu . +letin ~o. 578, J. B . Hutson, v1a _ s h1ngton, 193.6 . . be eline of CL ar C-0ns,un tion: . Its Causes and Possible . Remedie.s . . 19 8 . Mor~on . nnis, niversit y of ennsylvartia. . ''Diffe;rene:es 1n Living C6~ts in Northern and Southern , Cities", Coat ~f __ Li~ifig Division, Monthlz ~ a~or R~vie~, . Vol 49, ' No. 1, . July, 1 939, Washingt on~ . . Sta tis ti cs, . Washin g ton _ . .. . . " E arnin g s and ~ours in Cigar Industry~ March , 19.36., H. A. Ba tes an . D. L. He~m, Monthly Lab or Rev _ iew I V ~l 44, No . 4, . Ap:ril,. 19~'7 ~ . Vv a shington. . . . . The . Economic pevelo ment . of . the Ci ar Indust1"1"17' in the United States ... 1 . s . ae~, . e Aris r n , ng ompany , .. ~ncast~r, â€¢. Penrtsylv . ani~â€¢ . . . . . . Effe cts of Mechartiza tion in C i ar Manufacture . May, 193a. W l) . . Evans, Natio;nal _ e . se _ arc oject in oopera _ tlon with United . . $t~tes Bu,reau of ~9:bor St a t istics, . Washington~ . . , Ex ort Tracie in and B -Products usea of Tobacco Marcil 20, 1 ~ 39 1 s enate oc~ent No. .. .. , ongress, st Se . ssi op ) . Prepare d b y B11;rea.u of Agric u . 1 tural ~con-omi c s, Washington . F a ir Lab . pr Standards Act, 1938 G ov ermtlent Pri ri _ t ing Office, ' . W ashingtop. . .. . . ' . . . . _ Fi rst Annual Report o n To ba ~co Statl s t 1cs,, (Statis _ ti~a l Bul1etin No. 58), May, 1937 Bureau of Agrictilt.ural Economics, _ '!! a shin g ton. . . . Fl orida Industrial Commi ssion., Unpubl _ ish~d data, J\ugust, 1939., . Tall.ahasaee, Florlda. . . . . Fo reign co1rnnerc e arid Navig a t~on qf the United , State~, 1 ~ 09. 193'7, Bureau . of F' . oreign ~d . Dom e . stic Co1lu11erce, Washington .. Forei gn Connnerce Year Book, i, 9 31-1938 . Bureau of Foreign and . . Domestic CotriJ:nerce, . Washin g ; toi:i. ' . . Inte ~n a tfo n a l Ci g ar Machiner y . Company, Data . fr o m Company Repre. s e nta tive, ~ew York~ 1 ~ 39. . Ke y W est, The Old ~nd The New, 1 9 12 ' Jeff e rson . B . Br owne, St. A t1 . gustlrie , F'lorida. ... . ' . . 93 . . PAGE 105 . . ,, ' . . . . . . . . , . . ' . . 94 . ' .. .. . TSE CIGAR . INDUSTRY _ OF 1 AJIPA, FLORll!A . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . t . . . . .. . ' . . . Meehan! a tion and Product! v1 t of Labor in the Cl ar 11anufa-ctur1 Industi:y! u.llet n No. 660-. September, 1 : . Bur _ eau o Lab-or Statistics, Wash1ngto n. . MorithJ.y Re1~9:, s es or J{evenu-e Data, 1920-1 938 Bureau . 9r _ Internal . . Reyenue, Washington ~ . .. .,.,,..._ . . . Monthl{ 81,nnn',l or Porellf an4 Domest 1c ct:f M i ami and _ Tampa, Florida"â€¢ . Port Series Jo, 8 , Part 2, .. United States . Shipping Board . B~reau; W ashingto,n. . . Printers t . I nk Company; Unpublished d ata, August, 1939.lfew York . Prod~ct1 on, : ~PlQJ ~ent an<:} 2 Product~yi ty I Pai;-t I _ "Pl~r . pose , . llet _ ho de . . and Suromary . of Findi11,gs", Part II _. Indice . el' for Individual .. Industries anQ. Methods of Constructlori ' ", and ~ Part III ~App en . d 1 1:.ces" ; 1939 fror~~ Progr~ss Admin i stration , Wash1ngton. Product1gn Trends in the United States Since ]870, 19~4 ~ /u'thur I C F. ~urns, New . Y orlc . . . : . . ' " . . . Report on the Cig~ Jlanufa ct:uring Ind 1.1 atcy & July, . 1936 W . D. . . Evans, Nat _ ional Redearch 1 Pro j , ect , . . W ashington. . . ' Report of Roasinore 1 Robbins a.nd Co,, I n c., 01'.l the Cigar Industry, . -. 'November 3 , ; 1933, .. 11~1r Yo~k. _ .-_ . . .. . .: Retail Distribution, Vol, II, . Census of Business, .: 1935 Burea u . of the Census, Washington~ . ; . . . . . . . . . Supplgments.) Trade . Agreeme~t Nego . tiati9ns wit h cuba, 1930. Tam pa . . ; .â€¢ . . _ ChainbeI.' of Co11111~rce., Ta . mpa.,. _ ~lorida . , .. T@mnB P!l li: Times, . Clippings, 1924, 192,5; 1926 , . 1 933, Tampa, . Fl ori . ' . . . Tampa llqrning T;r:;m 1 ne, F1 _ 1~& ~~oo , 1901, 1910~ _ 1923, . 193'1, . 1938, 1959 , Tampa., Florida . . . . . . . . . .. Tal':'i rr A ct of 1.930;, P~ragraph 602, Go:v:ernment Printing otrice, . Washington. . . . : . . . I . . . . . . .. I . Taxes on Tobacco . , Snu:f:t, Cigars and Cigarette;; Revised . Nov~mbe r , . . 1~34, Bur , eau of In . t" . r11al , ~evenue, Was)1ing~on. . 'lb.ir . teenth Census , t the United ta e . 1 . 1910; Fourteenth C , eneus o the United ; ,&tates , . 1~20; and Fif'tee~th ce n~s of' the Un ites . . !tates, ~930 . Bur eau . o . f the Census, Wa 1 shington. . : , . . . . Tobacco, January . !ugu~t, l . ~39 Tobacco Trade Journal CODJpany, .. . â€¢ew: Yorlc . . . . . . . :. . . : Tobacco , A;;rtra1J t 11 r e.1 OJ 1 tJ oqk Charts, J 939 , ; October. 193 8 ..:. Bur eau . of Agrioul tural EconoIQiCS, wa shington. . .. . . : .. Tobacco Barometer , scell~~eo.us month s, . 1~37-19 . 38 . Tobacco . .. Ie rchants' :Association ot the united St . a:tes, ._ New . York~ . .. Tob~cc _ o . )(a~ 1 1factures~ ( Census or Manu . ~~ct:ur _ es) 1 _ 1863-1937 B ureau . . of tb.e . Census . , ashington. . . . . . . ' . 7:coocco Q, 1 tJ ook For : J 939 November 4, .. 1938 .. _ Bureau o:f A~i,oul t u r al Econom~cs _ , Wash _ ingtpn. . . : Tbe Tobacco . S1tua tion I Karch . 2'8 . , ' 1939 :. Bureau Of .. Agz-1 cultural .. . Ec6non 1 ics, Washington ~ . . . . . . . The Tobacco . Studt, Merell, 1936 . Office of ltatlonal . Recovecy _ . . AdmJnist . ra t!~n, w . aehi~gton. . : . : . . . .1 .. Unpubl~$ed Govermn~nt Reports: Bure . au _ of Interpel Rev enue; Ta mpa .. Customs . Office and Jacksonville Customs Office and united .. States We~ ther Bureau;" Tampa; Florida. . . .. . .. . ''W~ge De~iaion in _. cas e of Gr.adiaz:..:Annis and Co~-: C1gtLxâ€¢maker . s ! .. I; nternd.tional Union", Jlpnth]y Jil.bnr Rey:iey, Vol 40, w o. 3, . March, 19~5, "1ash,-ngt on. . . . . . . . . J.'hoJ ~ . saJ e n1strtro 1 t1on , Vol. 1 11, < QOPffl 1 c8 or . BJ,ninesa), 1935 ~r~au of' the Census, Waahing~on. . , . . , . . : "Ybor i ty . Ear~ Y . Days of Yb~r C _ i ty ~d the . ~eginning of the C _ l g ar . . : Indus . try" ;.. ~ulen Sabe (llr~. June Connor), ,:ohecco e1szine. . . . . .. Spec1a1 Tam12H F'41 t1on,â€¢ 1923. .. .. I ... ' . . . . . . ' ' . . . ' . 6 ,. . ' .. I . â€¢. . . .. I ' .. ' . . . . . ' . . ' . . . . . . . ' .. I . . . . . . . :

PAGE 106

. . . . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . o l . . : ' ' . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX .. . . . '(Sta~cal rabies) . TABLE 1 . . . ' ' . . . . I .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . . . . PERCENTAGE OF LOBO FILLER AND " SHOR!' FILLER cro.ARS . TO TOTAL PRODUCTION IN TBF: UNITRD STATES : ... .. ,. 1920~1938 ' . . .. .: . .. . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . Per cent or Long_ FilleJ . . Ci gal's j . . . . .. . . Per Cent of . . Short-'Filler . cie,al' . s 1938(.l) . 70 . 0 30-0 2 , 8 ~3 . . . 1937 (1 _ ) . 71~7 . 27 .2 . . . 1~36 1936 . : . . . " 72.8 ... . . . 74.l .. 2-5.9 . . 1934 . . . '16.6 . '79 .o 78.7 . 24. 4 . 1933 " . 1932 i931 1930 . . ' ' . . . 77.8 , . . . . . .. . . 21. 0 . .. . . 21.3 . 22.2 . 20 . 3 . . . . 1929 1928 . . . . 79. '1 83".5 . 93 . l 16 .5 16.9 ' 1s .3 1927 83.7 . ' . . 17 3 . 1926 ' 1925 1924 1923 1922 ' 1921 1920 .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82. 7 . 83 ~a 84.9 a7.s 8'7.6 8'1.4 99;9 . , . . . .. . ' . .. 16 . 2 . . 15 .1 . . 12.4 . 12.4 . 12.6 . .. 11 .1 . â€¢. . . SOURCE: Mechanization and Productiv-ity of .-' Labor in the . . Cigar Manufactur1ng rndust ry. Bulletin No. 660, . : Bur('au of .. Labor Statistics . , Wash ington, September~ , 1938 . . . . . . _ (l) . Estimateq. '. . . . . . . . ,â€¢ . . . . . . . .. . . . . ' . . . . .. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . 96 ' . . .. . . ' . ' . . . . . . ' â€¢. ' . . . . . . .. ' . . ' . . . ' .. . . . , . . . . . . . ' . . ' . ' . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .

PAGE 107

" . . .. ' . ' ' .. . ' .. . ' . . . . . . ' ' 96 . . .. . ' . . . ' . . ' . . ,â€¢ , .. . , . . , 4 â€¢. ' . . < . . . . . ' THE CiGAR ll(DUSTRY Ol!TJIPA. ~ FLOR,[Dj _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' : . .. . .. . . . .. . ,â€¢ . . . . . . .. . I . . . . . . . .. . ' r I . . ' â€¢, 4 . . ' . ' . ' . . . ' . . ,â€¢ . . .. . . . ' . . . .. . . .. . ' # . . . : TABLE 2 . . ..... 'â€¢ . ' . . . . .. f .. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1 ' . . . ~ . ' . . PRODUCTION AND VALUE OF oollMT . IO crGAR TOBACCO BY riPBs . . . H THE . UBITID STATES . . .. ' . .. ' ... . . . ' .. ' . . . 1936, i937 : ' .. . . r I o . . ' ' . . . . . Production . . . . . . . ' . . . ,â€¢ .. . . . ' t, 000 pound _ s Averag _ e Price .. per Pound ( cents ) . . . 1936 . 1937 . . . 1936 . . 19 37 WRAPPER TY'nS: . . . . . . . . . . ,. : . \ .. . ' . ' ' . . \ . . . . . ' ' . . Connecticut Vall . ey Shade , . . 6 ;. 753 Georgia Florida Shade . 2i666 Tot~ l _. . . _ 9, 41 . 8 . ' . . s, 4 _ 68 . 2 ; 520 .. . a ,:(jae . . . . aa.o 69.o 82 .6 . . . BIBDBR TYPES : . . ' l3road .. I,eaf, (Connecticut . . .. . ' . 14 , 016 . . . V~l1ey ) . . . . . . . . . 12. '7 51 . Havana See4,Connebt1r;ut . .. .' Val ley . . . . . 8 276 . 10 17a . . , . Havana Seed, . Penns. y l va:nia . 1 . , 09 5 wi~consin, Southern . . 11 . , 016 : Wis c~nsin, Northern 8 . 1 030 : Tot.al : . . 41 ,l 1 6tJ . . . . 1,468 . :. 14, ' 520 . . 11, 042 . .. 51,224 . . . . ' t I FJI,I,ER TYPES : . . .. . . . . . 8(). _ 6 ' . â€¢, . . 92.0 ' .. . 75.0 .. 87 .2 . . . . 15. 2 . . . ' . P~nnsyl vani,i Seed ~eaf . . . ' .. 3~, ~50 . . . . ?8 I 670 . Miami Valley . . (Ohio) .. . _ . 13 , . 16 , 0 . . 15,698 11 . 5 .. 9.5 . 10.4 s.0 13.5 . .9 . . . . ' . ' . . . . .. Georgia~Florida ( Sun-grown) "760 .. 1 , 232 .: .. Total . .. . . . 47,210 , ,600 ' . . . . 1 . ~otal All Types . .. . . 9 _ 7 , . 856 . 105:,812 13 5 . 11 . o ,â€¢ . . . .. . ' . . . . . . United Stat~s Departmept or . Agriculture, Agricult-r&.l St~t is . tics, . w~a~i ' rig~on, 1938 . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . â€¢' . . . 1 . . . . ' '. . . , â€¢. . . . . .. . . . â€¢. ,â€¢ . . . . ' . . . , . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . I . . , . . . . . . . â€¢. . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . .. . . .. . ' . . ' . . . ' : . . . ' .. . ' . # . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 108

. . . . . . ' Year 193 7 1936 1935 l.934 _ 1933 . . .. . : . . . . .. PRODUCTION AND vALUE . ' . . Prociuc ~ion . of C i g a r Wrapper pounds : Value of Wrapper 1, 8 90,000 ~, . 050, 000 1,890,000 1, 424 ,ooo 990, . 000 â€¢' . . . $1; 418, 000 1.,414,000 _ l,?28,000 854, ' 000 317,000 . . . . . Average . Price . Per Pound$ .75 . .69 . . . 65 . . so 52 . . . . ,, . . . . . . . ' . , . .. . . . . . . TA . BIB 3 . .. . . .. . . . . . . OF WRAPPER A ND J.4'rtj,ER TOBACCO . . ' GROWN IN . FLORIDA 19~3-1937 : . . . Production of . value or . . Cigar Filler : pounds .. . . '784 . ooo . ,. . . 380,000 . 770,000 . . 360,000 'â€¢ . 82, 0 00 . . . Filler . . . $10s, oo _ q 51,000 . 1 ' 04,000 ,ooo . 9,000 . . . . . . . ' , . . . . . . . . . . Average . Price .. -Per Pou.rid$ .135 . .134 ' .135 .119 .110 ., . . ' . ' . . .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . Total . Crop : .vaiue . . .. . . . ' $1 524 oo o , , . 1, 46 ~ 5, ooo . 1, 332, o oo . . . 897,. ooo . 326 , . 000 . . . ' . . . SO UR CE: Annual Report Department . o f on Tobacco Statistics . , 1938. B~1let1n -6'7 , . B ureau of AgricultlU'al Econolr11cs, . ' . . ', .. Agr1cu1 ture, Washington~ . I . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . , . ,â€¢ . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . CO . . 1 . . . .. . . . . ' . . ' . ' . ' . . . . . . , ., . PAGE 109 . . ' . . ' . ' . 98 ... . ' ' .. ' . . . . ' . ' ' . . ' ' " . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . ' . ' . . ' . . .. . . . ' . . . . . . ' ' . . ' \ . . . . . . ' . . . : . . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' TABLE 4 . ' . . ' . . ' .. .. . . : . . ' . . . . . ' . ' . .. . . ' . Iii . cussrFroATroR oF .. croA R JWCr:so PROCESsBS . . ' ' . . . . . . usED IB . THE UNITED STATES . . . ' . . A. . ' . ' . I ' LONG FIL1,ER . .-. \ . . . . . . 1 939 .. . : . ' . . . ' . . ' . . . . . . 1 . Spanish Hand . . . ' . ' .. 2. : Hand Mold . . . : ... . . . (a) ' . Havana . . . . . :.~: . . , ' {b 0 ) Shade _: . . . ' 3. C1on1pet1t1 ve System . 4. Tamp~~a DfUJD . Mold . : ... . . . . ._ : 5. Aut~mati~ Me.chine po~-Operator . . -~ B. 1 2. 3. . . . . . SHORI' FttJ,ER . :_ . ' . .. Hand )(old .. ' .. . . .. )(aoh irie-Bun cb.ed, Hand-Rolled . -~ .. Automatic llach _ ine rrwo .:: operatot. ~. , . . . ,â€¢ . . ' .. . . .. . . â€¢. . . . ' . . ' ' . . ,. . ' . . . . . ' . . \ . . . .. . . . . . . . SOURCE : : In~est1 gat1on . of cigar plan~ . s, 1n Flor.id&, New rork~ . and pemisylvani~, , 19~9 . Bew : Ji,rsey , . . . . . . .. ' . . . . I . . . . . . . . ' ' ' . . . . .. . . . ' ' . . t ' . ' . . , â€¢, ' . .. . . ' . . . . . ' . ' . . . ' . ' ' . . . . . ' . .. . ' . . ' . . . . ' .. . . : . ' . . ' . . . COMPARATIVE .:_ AMOUNT . ' . . ,, . ' . . TABLE 5 . . ' ... . OF . HAND . ABD . JIACHINB PRODUCTIOB op CIGARS IN . . ' THE . UNITED STA1'F-S . . . . . . . .. . , . e I ! . . , . . ' . ' . ' . . â€¢, . . . 1937 . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Of ~, 9p2 , 689 000 ~ig~rs prod:uced tn 1937. by manufacturers {lnswer1ng a questionna1r.e sent : out _ by _ th . e Cigar Jlanufacturers Ass o c1e.tion . , 2,379,860,000, or so % ~ were ma : chine made, while 582,828,000, or . 29 % were hand made. : . . .. . . . . Pr oduQ:tion by mach1n e and hand by clas~es was: . . ' . . . Class . . . . . . Hand . . .. . . . . . A . . : . . : . . . 1 % . . Machine B'J'I, . .. . . ' . . . ' . . ' . . . ' . . .. . . . . . B 40 ' . ' . . . . â€¢, C : . 65 D . . .. . . 100 . . E . . . . 100 . ' . . . . . . . .. . . . . 6 0 .. . . 3 : 5 . . 0 . . . : o . . . . . SOURCE: . Rep . Ort of .. the . c~ g -r .; , Manu.fa . ~turers Association for . . .. . . 19 39, . N~lf York. .. . . I . . ,, . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . .. , I . . . . . ' , . . . .. . , . f ' .. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ., \ . . . . . ' . ' . .. . . . ' '. . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 110 . " . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . operation . . . . .. . . . Lea f _ prepara t ion . . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . . , . : TABLE 6 . . . . . . . A.PPROXDIATE ~ AMOUNT . OF LABOR . REQUIRED TO MAKE ONE -. THOUSAND . FIVE-CENT . ' -. . . CIGARS BY . VARIOUS MANU . F'ACTURING METHODS . . , . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. --. . .. IN THE . UNITED STATP:S . . .. . . . . . . .: 1936 . . . . . ' . . . (;NUMBER 0~ MAN-HOURS) . . . . .. Long Filler ... . . Hand-made : . Four-operator : cigar machine ... . . . 1.41 1.64 . . 2 5 .19 1.41 1.64 9 .55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ' short F111er . Mac . hine-bunched .: Two:..operator . â€¢. hand-rolled . cigar maQhine . .. .. . : ., . . .â€¢ . .. 1. 41 . l .64 5.58 . . . Strippin g . . Making .. ~~ckins , . . Cel~o p hanin g and bandin g Box lal;> el. in g l .96 . .3 . 6 1.96 I , 1~41 1.64 19.64 1.96 . . . . . 1. 96 . . Miscellane ous labor . Total , all above operations .. .66 . 2.16 33 . 38 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 36 . . 16 .88 . .. 15 . 96 . . . ' . .. . . . 36 . . . 66 . . .. . . 2 _ . 15 27.83 . . t ., .. . . . . . . . 36 .. . 16 _ .. ea 11. 99 .. . . . I : ,. I I . . ' . . . . .. . : . SOUR C E: . l4eqh anizati on anc1 : Product1v 1 . ~y o :r Labor tn the . Cig~r Manufacturin g . i ndustry~ . . . . Bull~tin 660, Bu _ reau of Labor St~t~stics, September, 1938, Washingt~n. t * I .., . ' . . . . . . . . . .. . , . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'â€¢ . .. . . .. . . . . . . : . . . .. . .. . . , . . co co . ,â€¢ . . . . PAGE 111 . ' ' ', . . .. . . ., 100 . .. . .. , .. . . I . . . . . ... ' . . . . : . T_BE . CiG.AR INDUST,RY OF . TAâ€¢P~, . FLORIDA . . . . . . , . . . . . 'â€¢ . . .. . . . . . . ' . :. TABLB -. 7 l . . . . . . . . . ' . . : ... ... .. . . . . ' . .. . 'â€¢ . . . . . AffiAL OPERAT ING C C8TS FOR . BUNCBIBG . JIACHilE . . . ' . . . . . , Amortization . : . . . . . . ' ' ' . .. . . , . .. . Power end. . Light . . _ . , . . . . . . I . 1 so _ . oo . . . 20.00 . . . .. . . .. Rep~ir,. Oil and ~rease . Mair-:itenance . One . Jle . ahan:tc . or 15 ma chines . . . . ' , . , .15~ ' 00 . , 115.00 , . . . Sob.06 ' . ' ' . . . . . . ' ' . :â€¢ . . -. . -. , â€¢, .. . . AllNOAL OPE RATING . COSTS FOR COIIPl,k'tE SHORT P ... Tt " l',BJ:l . . . .. . CIGAR . KAOliDB . .. . . . \ . ' ..... ,â€¢ . .. ' Auiort iza tion ' . \ I . . I Powe:r and . t,igbt Repair, 01 . l . and Grea se Jla.intenance . .:. One Mechanic . . . ' 10 Machines . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for . . t soo.oo . 60.00 ' . 36.00 ; . . . . . 17 6.00 . . : t 7'70.00 : .. . . ... ' . ' . '. . . . . . . . I o ' SOURCj: . . Data from .Ar ~nco llach1D:e Company , â€¢~~ York , ' 'â€¢ . ' ' . . . ' ' . I ' . ' . . ' . .. . . I . . . . . . . . ' I . . . ,, , _. . . ' .. . . ' . . . , . . .. . . . ' . . ' ' . . . . . ' ' , . l . . '. . ' â€¢, .. ' . . . . . . TA:BLE 8 .. . . . COSTS OF CIGAR IIANOFAOTURB . . , BY FOUR-OPERATOR. LOifG~FXI,t,kR c roAR . JIACHDm ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . El~ments of Cost . ' . . ' . . . .. â€¢' . . ' . . Q . . . . Coat per 1,000 5-cent Cigars . . ' ... Power . ( S:11 factory p~er) , .. :.. : . .. Jlainte~nce ( all factory maintenance) . . ' . . ' ' . , Lub:ricati o (all .fa ctory .lubr . i cat1 . on) . Depre o1ation . (all f~c~ory . d~preciatic;>ri) Misc e11aneous . ( all miscelleneoue expense s) Royal tie . a ( on cigar ma . chines) : .. Total .. . ., ' . ' . . . .. ' . .. . . . ' I SOURCE: Jlecbariiz~tton and Product1v1 ty c;,t Labor In tlie ._ c1ga:r. . Ma _ nufa c tur~ng ._ . Indus t17, . ~l~t . 1n Ho . : 660 , . Bureau ~ r -. . , . ' .. ' : t..bor. St . ~tistics , S~ptember , . 1938 , Washington . ' . .. .. . . . ., . . . . ' . . . . . ' I . . ' . . . . . . . . â€¢' o o I o . . ' .. . . . . .. . . 'â€¢ . . . \ . PAGE 112 . . T ABi iE . 9 COMPARATIVE C OST OF: 1' . IA NU FAO TURE OF A . ~ IVE ~cE N f , ?Jf GAR B Y . THE ~C~I N E . P ROC E S S., C OMBIN A T ION MAC H I . NE AND HAND P ROCESS , . A J 1 D F IAND PROC ESS F OR MANUF A CTURER S IN T HE UN ITE !> STA TE S .. .. . .. . . . : . . . . ITE!MS OF COST . . . . . ' MACHI . NE PLANTS ,Faqtory Coat Cost Eer M . . . . . co MB INATIO N MACHI N E & HA ND PLANTS _ Factory _ C.QSt . Co,st per M . HAND PLANTS . .. MATERIALS~ Wt-apper . . : J2.847per lb . :$1.e27per lb. _ Facto-r-i Cost Cost per M , 2. l 1 P . e r lb _ . 2 . 02 : lbs .per M $3~867 . . ' B1.nder Fill.er. . . . . l.888lbs . per . M.$5 .088 o 511.per 1 b . . , . 5 .123lbs :per . ;M 2 41 6 . 2.75 lbs . per M $4.320 _ . o. 4 4 per lb. . . . 0 .419per 1 b . . 1 7 . 923~bs . per M 7. 294 1. s1a .. 5 617lbs . per M . 2. 376 . . 0 . 394per 1b. . 1s. 333lbs per . M . 6 .13'7 Boxes Labels . . 291 .. . .495 Cellophane . . . E ands . : .210 . . .074 . Wr~pping Ma.t:erial To ta 1 Mat e~ial . 17. 315 ( l) . 428 . . : . .. . L e ss ere d i t for . Waste , . .. ll6~88 1 l Net Material LABOR: . . . .. Strippers , 1!{rapper$ 0.114 per l b , : . 0.193 $~rippers , Binder 042 . per lb. 216 Str1ppe-rs, F iller . .f?33 pe . :r l b . .437 ... . Avera g e . fQr St . ripping . ~829 ( l) . ,Bandin g and Cellopbanin g , . . .099 . Bunch Bf.eakera ' Ro11ers . . . .... Au . toma ~ic Machi n e Opera tor~ S~lectors Packers Others Total La b or . . . .. ' . MISCELLANEOUS AND O i ' . . . . . . . . 2 .87 4 .. . . .312 . s o4 : 1.133 4 . 1-'?b ( 1 ) . Macp.1ne Ooats of . Operfltion 2.045 Miscellaneous . 517 Other 0 ~1.erhead : 2. 636 . l ~ . --: Total Miscellaneous and . Overhead i . . 616 ( ) . . .. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . .. . 1. 963 . . .388 .. .. 710 . . 1s . 244( 1 > . 385 t.ig .sp . 7 . . . . . .502 . 892 : 4. 65 ' 2 . . . = .767 . . . . . . .0 6l8per 1b. . 5.267lbs.per M 3.252 . 0.378per . lb . . 12 _ ~063lbs .per M : 4 .3 9~ 1. 967 . . . . . . ' . . . 417 ._ . . ' . . ' . . .. I . . .. . .... ... . . . . 1,040 . . . . 15 .-15 6 { . 1 ) . . . .: 15$15. 006 ( . 1) . . . . .. .453 .. 3.093 . 5 518 . .. .587 1. 10 . , . 1. 658 ( 1) .. . . . . . . .. . . ~ = t:::; ' ~ . . Total of all Costs , . . $25. B'I . . . SOURCBs The Tobacco Study, In . du~tr1es s . tud1es Section, Toba-cco (1 ' ) Because of' difference in niethod of production Qr reporting , . . . 4-. oo ( 2 ) . . . . _. . . 3 00 ( 2 ) . 2,. !3131 . 92g .;ee, . Unit, . Unite States Department of Connnarce, Wash1ngto?lc. _. ~ averâ€¢ge ot ~otal a is ~hewn and nQt the average or items . """ c 2) Bat1mated. . . . . . . . . .. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' PAGE 113 . . . . . . . I .. . . . . . . . ' . . 102 .. . . ' . . . . . . . I . . . . .. I . . . ' .. . . . . . . . . , THE . Cl~A~ lf{DUSTRY o,: r' AIP~ ~ FLORIDA . . : . . . .. . ., . . . â€¢, . . . . .. . . . TABLE 10 . . . . . 1 . . . ., . . . . . AUTOMATIC c . 1GAR 0 11ACHIN'ES . USED m ' ' FLORIDA . . . . . . . . . . CLASSiFtkâ€¢l BY c ITt&3 . . . . I ' . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . 1939 .. . .. ' . . . . . . City . ' . .. : . .. LQD:g-Fill~r . Machines . : . . . . . Shortâ€¢Piiler . . ~cbing . ](achinee Machinea .. __ .. . . . . . . . Ja ckaonv11le _. . . . . .. . . 306 85 . 12 . . . 8 . . . . . . ' Ta,,,pa 2 4 164 . . . 2 . . . . 3 . Quincy . : Bartow , . Havana : ami . . .. . ' . . . . . . ; . . 6 ... \ . 8 . . . . . . . 2 . . . ' Jtey - â€¢~st . : . 6 . . . . . . '41'1 1 . ' . ffl . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . SOURCE: . Bstima tes . obtained .rrom inter.views with . Tampa . . . .-. me.iiu.facturer$ and representati V,8 , 8 o . t machine companies, 193 9. . .. . . .. . . . ' . . . . ' ' . . . . : TABIB l J < 3 J ' ' . . . . . ' ' . . . . T.ABOR WAGE RATE$FOR -. diGARMAKING USED . . . . . 4 . WITH THE . COMPETITIVE .sYSTPlll u CIGAR FACTOR IM . IN . . . . NEW J.Ew.aE1, NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA . . . . . . 1939 . . . : . . .. . . ! . Wage Rate . _ Type . o.f Cigar .. . ' . .. I . . . . . . . ' .. . . .' . . . . .. . Macb1 . ue-Bunched Bt1nching . Roll ing . Hand-Rolled . ' . . . . . ' . ' . _. . , . . . . Total .. . , . . . B1Jncl;ling Rollin g . Total . ' . . . . . . Lew . , .90 5.00 5.90 . . 5 . ,, 5 . .. . MedilJJll 1 : 90 ' . 5.50 6.40 2.83 . 5~66 8.49 . 6 .oo . 6.95 3.18 5.83 9.01 . . . 4.65 . . . . . .. ., 2llM,. 3/25 Bunching ijolling Total 3. 50 7.00 10.60 7 . 6p :' ' : .. ' . .. â€¢. .. . . . . . . " . . . . . . 10 .. .. . ... . . . ' . . . . Bunching Rol . ling Total .. . Bunchi~ ..... Rolling . . . . . . . : 4 00 'â€¢ . . 4 20 a.oo 0.40 .. 12.00 . . 1~ _ .60 .. . . . 5~15 _._ 8~60 . . 12.30 . . . ' Total . . 13 ' .15 .. 5.00 10.00 15.00 . ' . . . . 6 .38 12~25 . 18.63 . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢, Bunching 5.63 Rollj.ng . . . 10. 7 5 Total 16.38 . . ~ching . 6.6.5 ... . .Ro111ng .. 11.60 . . . . . . .Total ' . . . la. ag . . . . 6.15 . . . 10.60 . : . 16.?5 . ' ' . . . . 7. 60 :. 14.60 . . 22.00 ' . 6.60 ' 12.70 -: ' 10.;So 7.50 . 1s.-co . . 22 .. . 66 .. . . .. . . . , . . . . . . SOURCE: . FielC,. . 1nve at igtit1on oi cigar piants in '.Rew Je-r:s e,y, . : Bew Yo . rk, and . Pennaylv&ll.ia, 1939. : ' ' . . . . . . . .. , . . . . . . . I . . ' . . . . . .. . .. .. . PAGE 114 ; . . . ' .. ' . I .. ,. . . . . . . , ' . . . .. APPENDIX . . TABLE = 12 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ,. COMPARISON OF LABOR COSTS AND EARNINGS OF Cio~~s mmBR THE . SPANISH HAND, HAND . MOLD, . AND COMPE:l'IT~ SYSTEMS OF CIGAR MANUFACTURE W ITH . A iO . CENT CIGAR . . 1939 . . . . . L o w froduction . Spanish Hand }la~ Mold Ccm1petitive Me~od Method . Systen, (Per Wqrker)(Per WorkerlPer worker) . .â€¢ . . . Da:ily Product . ion of Cigars .. . : 130 . 16 5 2 1 50 . Working Days . in . Week .. . . 5 . 5 5 weekly Production . of Cigars . 650 . 8~5 1,260 Wa g e Rate Per . K C~ga.rs 19 . oo 1'1.25 13. 75 w~ekly Earn ings 12.35 ... 14.23 17 .19 Reduct1 on in tabor c _' os ts cit . . ' Co~petitive Sys~ems Over Ot~er Systems Incr~ase in 01gar Maker 1 a Earnings . Under c ompetit1ve System .. . . . Hif Production ... Da~y Production of Cigars Working Days 1n .Week . Weekly Production of . C _ igars Wa g e Ra . te Per JI Cigars . Weekly . E-ruings . . Reduct ion in Labor cpsts Qf :: , Competitive System over Other Systems Inc~ease i~ Cj,.gar Maker' a Eazâ€¢ni~gs . U nder competitive System . . . 2'7.6 ' '/, . _. 39.2 . % . . . 1'75 5 8'75$19.00 $, 16 .63 27.6 % ' . 20 ~3 '/, 20.0 'I, . 225 . 5 . . I~l26 ' I 17 .25 19.41 20~3 'I, . . . 24. 0 'I, .. 350 . 6 1,760 . 13.75 24.06 . SOURCE~ nata fro~ Tampa cigar plan~s relative to spanish hand and _ hand mo~di _'. methods. _ D~ta _ from ci ga:r;o plants 1n xew . Jersey, . . â€¢. N~â€¢ Yo:rk, . and Pennsylvania relative to c0111petiti ve z,ystem, 1939. . , . . . . . . . Pennsylvania New Jersey Florida : SOURCE: : . . . ' TABLE 13 . . DISTRIBUTION OF CIGAR MACHINES IN THE . ' . LEADING :. CIOAR PRODUCING STATES . . 1938 . ' , . . . . . . . Short F~ller . . Lo~ Filler . . 5 58 . . . . , 500 . 100 . 900 '. .. 417 â€¢' 6 . . ' Total ~,QM 1,000 423 , ' Data . furnished ~y Arenco lta . chi ne Company, an4 . ~st1metes . from the :i:nter!Ult _ iop.al p1ga~ Machinery c ompany, New York, '. . . . . . . . 1939. . . . . . ' . . ... .. . . . ' . \ . . . .. . PAGE 115 . ' . . . . ' . I .. .. . . \ . . . .. â€¢" .. . . . . â€¢. . . 104 . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' . . . . ' ' . . . . . . .. . . . . ' . . . ' . ' ' I ' " ' . ' . . . THE . C(GAR .. . INDUSTRY ()F TAâ€¢PA, . FLORIDA . o I o ' 0 I ._ . . ' .. . . . ' , . ' . . . â€¢, . : ' . . . . , ' .. . \ . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . , . oâ€¢ I I . . .. . . . . " TABLB . 1, ... ---. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . AVERAGE H . OURLY RETURNS TO BAlfD CIGAR IIAKBRS AID MACHINE oPERAT oRS Ilf DIFFBRBBT FACTOR i iS . . . . . . .. 1938 , , . ' . . . . . . . ' . I . . . . . . . . . Hand-mad~ cigars Sell:irtg . for . â€¢. :. .. Average, r . ~te . cents er hour .. Le . as than . 5 cents each : . . 5 cents each : . t ,. . Over 8 to 15 .. cents each ' . . . .. aver 15 t . o 20 cent -' s each ' . . c : 1gars bunch:ed bJ mac~ne and ~Q~led . . . . . by hand . . . .. . . . . . " . . . . selling . r _ or 5 cents . e ach _ ,._ , C . igars ma4e on ~operator ~ . machines, . .. se1 11ng _ for .' less than 5 . cent~ . e~ch . : . , 5 cents eaeb. . . : .' . . . : . . . . . . . . ... ~6, 39 . 36, . 38,38.43,43, . . over 8 to 15 : cents . &ach . . .' . . ,â€¢ . ' . 4'7. :. .. c1gars made . on 2-oper~tqr short filler .. machines . ' ... . : ' . . . .. . . . ' . . . . . . . .. . . selling fo . r l~ss tb a~ 5 Cttnt~ each 30,35.42,48. , ' . . .. . . . . . . . . # I . . ; . SOURCB: _ .. _ Inv . est1gat1oti of' : records . ~f n~r : ~t,1-n pi~te. . Taken P~om: . Ef'tecta :: of Mechant . za _ tion 1n Cigar Ma m1tacture,W.D Evans, Bureau or ~bor: statistics, . 1938, Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . ' , , . , . . . . .. . . . . Year . . .. : . . .. ' . : TABLE 16 . iUMBlffl OF OIG.AR MA.IroPAOTURkRS IN TB k ui rlkD STA1â€¢E ' . ' . . . 191~1937 . .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . . . . .. . . . . . . Total IJ,mber of Year . Total llumber ot . . . Manufacturers , Jfil~tacturere 1958 .. 4,15'7 .. -: ... . 1923 . .. 10,605 . ,_; . _ . . 4, 86~ .-. :. 1922 . 12 ~ 106 --: .. . 1937 ' . . 1936 . 1935 . .. 5;292 .. . 1921 _ -. 12,330 . . .. 5,~09 . _ 1920 . 11,325 . 1934 ' . 1933 . 1932 " 1931 . 1930 . . ... . 1929 , 1928 ' 192'7 .. .. ,â€¢ 1926 . . . 1925 . 6 , . 160 .. .. 1919 ... . 11,720 . 6 ,'620 . . .' . i918 . . . 11.554 . . . e,9~2 _ . .. ~9i'7 . 13,528 . '7,138 . . . . 191 6 .â€¢ .. 14,943 . . .7,552 'â€¢ ," _ ... 1916 . 16,099 . . 8,'378 . . .. : 1914 . .. 17 . 135 . .. 8, 763 , .. . . 19 ' 15 .. . 20,288 ... .. . ... .~12 1912 .. .. 21, ()24 . 10; 24'7 . . . . 1 . 911 . .. 21, 26~ . : . 10 , '786 . _. . : .. 1910 .. 22~ 519 .. \ . \ . ' . . . . . . . 1924 . .: 9,977 ... ... ' . , . . . .. . . . . . . . . . SOURCE: . . . ' â€¢. ' ' . . . . . .. .. . . . . . B~eau . ot Internal Revenue, : Anrn>al Reports, . . . 1910-1938, WaMiington. . . . . . .. .â€¢. i . . . : . "' I I . . . ' .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l ' . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . .. ' . . . .. . ' . . . . . . . . . ' . , . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . . . : . . . . . .. . . . . . , ' . . . . . . . .. PAGE 116 . . . . .. . . ' ' . . . . . . , ' . . . . . . . . . . \ . I . . . . . . . . .. ... . : . . . . . ,â€¢ TABLE 16 , . . . . . . . NUMBER . OF CIGAR FACTORIES WITH CLlSSil'IED OUTPUT . . .. . . .. -. -. I . . . : . . . n THE . UNITED STA1'&:a . . . . . . . . . . . Annual Output .. I . . . . . . . . , .. .. 1937 . ' . . ., . . Al l .. factories . . 4; 853 . . . under 500, . 000 c1gâ€¢rs .. _ . 4,488 500, ooo to s, ooo, OQO , . 238 5 . ;ooo,ooo to 40,000 .,ooo 9~ 01(er 40 :, 000, 000 . . 29 . . . . ,,. .. . Annual Ontpu t . : .-., .. . ' , . . ' . . . ' 1937 .. ' . . . . ; . All factorie1, ,. ... . .' 100 . 0 % . Und.e~ 500,000 . cigars . 4.4 . 590 6 000 tq 5, OQO, 00 _ 0 . 7 .2 s . ,ooo;ooo to 40,000.,000 2a.5 . . over 40;000,000 . . 5 . 9.9 . . . . . . . l . . .. . . . . ' . . . . . .. 1 921~193'7 . . . . . . . .. NUMBER . . 1936 5,292 . 4,902 .. . ' : . OF FACTOR-TES . . 19S1 . . 7, : 138 . 6 . , 664 256 . 320 . ld7 . 1 22 . . .. 27 . 32 . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ' . . 19 26 . . . . 10.,247 9., 281 . . . . 680 263 23 PERCENT OF TC1rAI, PRODUCTION I . . . . . . . . ... . . . .100~0 'f, . 4 . 8 . . . .. . 7.5 31.l 56.:6 . . .. . . . _ . 193 1 . . 100. o % 5~2 . 10 . 7 ... .31 6 . . 62. o ' . . . . .. 1926 -. . . . : 100 .o , . . 8~0 . . . 17 .e . 49 .4 . . 25.0 . . . ' . . . . . . . SOURCE: . C~gar . Manufacturers As ~oc iation of b.eriea, 19 , 38 . , Repor.t New . York ' . . . . . ' .. ; .. , ' . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' . . . . , . . . . . â€¢, I . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 14,579 . . .. . . . 13; 149 , . . . . . . . . . 1, 130 . . .. . . 288 . 11 , . . . . , . . . . . . 19 21 . : : : 100 . 0 % : .. . . 13 '7 . ~6.2 . 44 . 4 . 16.!7 .. t I . . . . . I . . . . .. . .. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . ... 0 CTI . -.. t ' .. PAGE 117 . . . . â€¢' . . . . l 106 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . > . THE CIGAR . INDUSTRY QF TJ.MPA, FLORID.A .. ' . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . : Year . . .. â€¢. ' . ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ' ' ' . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . TABLB 17 . . ' . . . . PRODUOTI01' OF. . CIGARS F oR COBS . IX .rBR . UBITBD STATBS 1 . . 1863~19~8 . I I . . ' . . .( TH OUSllDS ) . CIGARS Year . . . . ' . . t.arge . . Small .. . . CIGARS .. Large . . . 1938 5,163.287 . . 1'74,669 190:S 6,806, 017 " 193'7 6,3()3; 369 19a, 59 5 . 1902 6,2:Sl , . '7 . 16 , 1936 5,172~2'79 180,006 : 1901 ; 6.13~,391 . 1935 4 , 68~, 3'70 . . 17'1, 822 1~00 .. 5 . 565 .670 19 34 4,525,780 ~21, 977 ... 1899 . 4, 909, 667 . 1933 . 4, 300 046 . . 209, 51 ' 5 .. 1~9~ 4, ~58, 83'7 . i:~32 4,382,723 I 278,749 , 1897 .. 4,135,594 .1931 s,347,921 .... 3 3a,.~97 .; .. 1a 95 4,04 . s ,463 . 1 930 . 5, 89~, 99 0 383., 070 .. 189 6 4,099, 138 1929 6,518,533 419,880 18~4 4,163,641 1920 _._ 6,~173 ,182 415,636 .. l,893 4 . ,341, . 241 . 1927 . 6 , 519, 005 439,419 18 . 92 . 4, 6'74, 7 . 08 . 1926 6,498 . ,641 41 . 2,31 " 5 . 1 891 . 4,422, 024 19 . 2 . 5 . 6 ; _ 46~, 193 .': 44'7 ,089 .. . .1890 4,228,528 1924 e. 597 ,6'77 .. 536,714 . 1aa9 ~~ _ 78'l ~ . 229 . . 1923 s,950,247 so~;3o6 . 1aea ~~&60.16~ . .. 19 . 22 .. 6, 722,354 . .. 6~?, 907 1~'7 ._.-. 3 ,~6~,630 .1921 6 . ,1726; ' 0~5 . 670,483 . 1886 . 3,462,014 1920 8,096, '7 59 . . . 63-3, 222 188 . 5 3,293, 663 I 1919 . 7, 072,357 . 713, 23 _ 6 1884 . 3 ,.372, 982 .. . 1910 .7 , 053 . , 549 . ~4'7 ,466 . 1003 .5,~1, a1s i~17 7 ,.659 ,890 _ ... 96'7, 229 1882 3 ,117,861 . , 1916 .. rt , 04~, 127 890 , 483 1881 2., 806, 720 1915 1 6,599,188 . . 965 " ,135 ,â€¢ 1880 2,609.665 : . _ 1914 .. 7,1'74, 19 2 . , 1 ,074,699 . ' 18,9 2,019,247 . 1913 . 7,srr1,soa . 959 ,409 : 1877 1,0 00,.009 1912 ,,04.,257 . .. :1,056,19 . 1 187 _ 6 1,926,6~2 .. 1911 ' '1,048,505 1, . 213,833 " . . : 18'13 1,179,947 . 19 . 10 6,810,098 : . 1, 118 ,13 5 . 1871 ' 1,313,914 . 1909 . 6, _ 66'7,'17~ ._ i,04S,024 . . 186 . 9 . 991,~6 1908 6,488,907 1,072,613 1867 4~, . 806 ... 190'7 7~:502, 030 . . 1,074,084 . 1866 ' 693,231 : . . 1906 . 7,14'7:, . 548 . . 989,751 . 1865 " 199,288 I . : . 1905 ". 6,747,869 .. ... 803~642 . . . . . .. 1904 6, 6~(), 482 . . " ?36 , . 187 .. , . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SOURCE . : air.ea~ ot Int.eriia 1 .. Re venue, Annual Report a, . . ' ' . Waahj ngt9~. . . (~) O _ igars produced 1n ~ond not included. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .. . . . . . .. . ' . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'â€¢ . . . &â€¢â€¢all 592,407 . . 676, l . 16 '7'76,~48 . 610, '92'7 6~2,318 4~~8 . 26 29(;~466 . â€¢' . . . . . . . \ . \ .. 18~3 .. 1938, .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . PAGE 118 , . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . .â€¢ . . . . . ' Calendar Total TARt,! 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAX-PAID . WITBI>RAWAL OF CIGARS . POR COBSUMPTION BY . CLAS!ka â€¢, ,, . . . A . -IN 1'BE UNITED STATR:3 :i920-19S8 . . . . ... . B . . . . .. . . C :. D . . , : .. . . . . . B Year . 1111.liona . . . . . . . . . ------.. (St & less) . : . 1on11 . . .. . (5.-1-8~ ' ) . M1111one ( 0~ 1-15,) . . ( . 1 . 5. 1.20~) 1111 . lione . : 111111one . ( Over 20f) )(11 . lione . , . 19S8 . C 5, 3~~ . 4, 7~0 52 . 1937 ' . 5,53~ .. . 4,867 ' l9S6 5 1 394 . . 4, '749 1936. . .. . . 5, 03 . 1 . . : 4, ~. . 193 4 . . .. : . 4, ae0 . . â€¢, 19 r . 193S . . 4,69~ . : . 3,932 : 1932 . 4,691 . . . . 3,735 19.31 5 . ~626 : : . 3., 986 .. . . 1930 6 . , 1~7 . . : . . 3 833 . . .. . 1929 . .. 6,849 . . . . 3, 869 .. .. .' l SB . . . . 6 , . 795 , 3 610 .. . 19217 . 6,891 , 3,45'1 . .. 1~26 ~-. 6,960 . . . 3, . 208 19 25 6 g 21 : ..: . 3 027 . . . " , . l '9 24 . , '7 , . 003 _,.. . : 2 , 89 3 . 1123 . : . 7,1>79 .. .. 2,863 . ' i9 ' 22 . 7; 216 . 2.87 2 1921 . . 6, , 961 '_. :.... : 2;157 : 1920 . . . 8, oO~ ,2 1 043 : . . . .. .. ..4 " ... . . r . . . 67 56 . 68 60 . 34 63 173 , .. 394 . ... 582 . . 6 49 758 . : ! 9-66 . 1 . :L40 . . , . . . . l, 381 . . . . . . . l.,932 1, 61~ 1,900 . 2 620 . . . , . .. . . 503 _ 37 663 . .. 42 . . . 544 . , . 41 486 38 . ' 566 . . 41 . . 574 . . .. 46 842 _56 ' l ,f?8 . . ~6 . . 1, 7~8 121 2, ~36 . 145 ; . 2 353 143 . . 2: 49~ .. 15() . 2, 614 . 151 . 2, 66 _ 6 . 147 . 2,665 l,31 2, . 723 .. 125 ..... 2,678 116 2 722 150 . , . . . 3,641 . . 142 . . . . 4 . . . . .. . 5 . 5 . 5 . . 4 . . . . 5 . . . .. 5 13 . 21 27 30 ... 33 â€¢, .' 31 41 33 . 36 . . 36 32 . . . 66 . . . . . .. . . . > .,. . . . . .. ' . . . . . . SOURCE: Oomp~led 1'1'0111 tf.x!'""paid _ w1 . thdr _ a1'~1â€¢ iri . Uni t~d Sta tea . ( 1nciu~1ng tax~pa.1d w1 thdrawale _ of . . p~oducta . :from th _ e .: Ph111pp1~e Ia:J_ande . and . Puerto Rico), reported in monthly ~tâ€¢t~menta by the ._ . Coi1a-e1oner o:f' Internal Revenue, 1920-J,.938, W~ah1ng ton. . , . ' . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . . â€¢. . . . . ' . . . _ ..,, "' . t:, . ~ . . . . . .., s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 119 . . ' . ' . . . . . . . .. 108 . . . . . . . ' . . ' . ' , ' . . . . THE CIGAR lNDqSTR Y OF TA MPA ; FLORIDA . . TAB LE 19 . . . . . T AX-PAID WrIâ€¢BC>AAWAL . OF C I GARS FOR c ONSUKPT ' ION BY CLASSES . . . . . . , . . IN THE UNITED S~t'1'ES . . .. . . . â€¢. 1920-1938 . . . . . . . . .\ . , . . . ' . . ' . Per Cent of Classes . . to . Anm1al Total . . . . A . . . B C D E . . 15.T-2ot over 20,! . 5/ less . 5 .. T-0t 0.1~st .. of Total of Total : of Total or Total of Tot 1 . . 1938 . . 88 .82 1937 . 87.9.5 1936 00.o~ . 69 . . .75 . . . .00 . 09 .09 . .o9 1935 88~13 1934 . 86.21 . .'76 .77 84 .oa .. " 1933 i . 85.64 1932 79.61 1931 _. 70 .85 , i.930 62.30 1929 .. 56 .34 . 1928 . 53. 21 1927 ; 5Q.17 . . . . 1. 00 1. 20 1.53 1~95 . 2.12 .. 12 . . . 1926 . 46.09 2.11 2.18 2 . 17 ' .11 .23 ~35 .40 .43 .48 .44 .59 .47 .49 . . . 1925 . . . 43~ 74 . 2 .12 1~87 1.69 . . ' 1924 41.31 . . 1923 : 38.80 . 1922 .3 9 . 80 . ' 1921 . 36.99 1920 24.03 . 1 .61 2.16 . 1.67 . . . 60 ' . . . 46 . .. . 6~ . SOURCE: . Compiles from t~ _ -pa1~ withdrawals 1n . the United states ( inc+:udirtg tax -paid ,ri thdrawals of products from the Philippine rsiands and Puert :" o Ric~) repor t ed in mo~thly statements by the Connn 1ss 1one:r . of Internal Revenue~ 1920~1938, Washington. .. . . ' . . . . . . Month J~nu'iJ.ry . . . . . . . . .. . . : . TABLE . 20 . . . . . . . . sEASONAL . INDEXES OF . OONSUJ(PTION OF . CIGARS . . t N THE UN . ITED . STATEa ( 1) . . . . . . 1938 ~,6.6 . . . 1937 ab~S ; I 1930 ' . 1~38 . 1936 " 1935 19 34 ,,,,,. 9 , 82.5 88.0 ' . 1933 1932 19.31 si.9 . 92.6 ai.9 . ' ' 1930 85.4 February: 79.9 . 81. Q . 82.6 so.a 78.1 99.4 . 93.9 81.6 82.9 . . . . 105.0 . 8'7 .3 88.6 92.4 00.1 96.o 99.4 92.7 , . . March 100.9 . . . Apr11 90 . 0 102 95 . 3 . 9 4 .1 . 90.0 . 0 . 0.7 94.5 103.7 95.8 . . May 9 '7 .3 97.-0 9'1.1 102.7 99.2 1 ' 02 . ;6 , 100 .Q . 105 ~ 4 . 106.? 106.6 104.7 JUne . 111.3 l-01.3 105.5 115~6 1ba.1 . 116.7 105 . _ 9 . July _ . 98 4 107 .'.'S 111. '1. 1 08. 8 . 99. 6 110.6 9'7.6 108.0 108.6 . . . 112.1 . Augu st . 103.4 103.3 106.4 111.0 120 .1 108.3 104 . 5 105.4 . September 113 .B li2.5 113.3 1 08.5 10&.o 117.Q . 109.5 101.4 106.8 October 12 2.6 117.4 . 127.6 ' i32.1 129 . 0 112.a 110.0 120.6 127.2 ' . Novem b er . 118.5 ll0 . 5 113 . 3 . 116.2 121 ~6 114.7 113.2 . 107.7 107 ' ~6 December '78 .5 . '!7 6 . o 86.0 79.8 . 82 . 9 7 6.4 5a.9 68 !7 . 7:1. .. 2 . . . Ave~a g e . 100 .o 100.0 100.o 100.0 100.-0 lOOttO 100~0 100.0 100.0 . . . ' . . . . . . .. . . ' . .. . . , . . . . ' . . .. . SOURC~: ' Compu:t . ed :from t ax-paid â€¢ithdrawa.ls of . lar . ge cigars . as reported by . t h e Bureau of . Internal Revenue, . ;193 _ 0-1938, Washin gt on. . . ' . . .. . . . . . . ---~ (1 ) . Base: F~r . each y . e ar , av er ag e production per month 100.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , PAGE 120 ,, ' . . . ' ' . . ' ' . . . I TABLE 21 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . .. NUMBER OF CONCERNS MANUFACT UR ING . CIGARS EXCLUSIVELY . BY PRINCIPAL . STATF.S ' . ' . : ' 1 9 29-1937 . . . . ' . , . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . 1937 . S . tate 1936 1935 1934 1933 . 1931 . 1929 . . . . . s tates United Total . :4 ,,522 4 . ,905 5,190 5,473 . 5,787 6 , 195 7,f?02 . ' New York . . . ' 1,010 1,095 1,-;,.20 ' 1 ,145 ' . 1 . , l '73 . 1,312 1, 621 . . . . Pennsylvania 694 766 . 807 . 933 , 843 865 1,032 . ~ ' ~ . Illinois 5 09 53? .. 556 613 604 691 8 ' 46 j , . . Wisconsin 282 322 437 . ' ~ 309 334 361 378 . f , . . ' Massachusetts 270 2 t> 88 299 . 315 350 330 363 . . . . . Florid'1, 19'7 206 230 249 282 263 304 . . . ' . Total for 6 states 1 2,961 3;201 :s,342 3,4e9 3,613 . 3,839 : 4,603 . ., . . Tota1 for 42 other . . . ' . ' states 1,561 . l, 7 _ 0~ 1 1 848 1,984 2,174 2,356 . 2 ,. , _ 899 . . Percent of 6 . stat~s to ' . . . . . . . .. . ' 65$6 65% ~4% 63% . 6 2% 6~ . 61% . ' U nited States total . . . . . ' . . SOURCE : : Bureau ' I . of Internal Revenue., . Annual Re _ ports, 1 _ 929-193 8 , . Washin g ton. . . . . . =.fl. . ' ,. . . . . . . . . .. . ' ' ' . ..., 0 (0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 121

. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . ' .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . TABLE 22 . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAX.;.PAID W:X.TH l>RAW:A.L o:r . Ist!iOE AND SMAIJ, CIGARS . FOR CON SUJIPTIOB . . . ... : . ~ .. . . . IN SPIOIPIO LEADING STATES .. . _. . . . . . : . . . .. . . . . .. . . 1920 , 19~, . 19~0~1937 . , .. . . . . . . . "' .. . . .... . . . :.. . . . . . . .. .. . ' . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ' . . .. . . . ' . : . . . . . . . . . . Year Pennay vlanill -. :. . Florida . . . _.New, jeraez . . : . . . ,. south . Carolina . . , , .. 8 . 1 :-,;....,., ~~~....-: a , 8 .. . .. .1937 l,9~ 1 7'74 ' ,261 .. :. . 141,600 . 846,66 . 1,250 .. 16,-079, 9$2 : . 6~3,933,~79 ... 4,'7 . 98,521:, . 290 ,3 8; . . 1936 1, 895;~9,582 . , ~47, : 80() ' . 732,839,966 .. 5,8 17, . 977 608,853;344. .. _ .. 246 ' ,400 . 252,593,'?07 : . . 1935 1,766,637;930 ' . . 26~,700 635;2<;)5,056 , . _ 2,617,460 . 5~9,~82 ,168 1.-204, 400 188,167,50~ . 1~3~ . ,, 1, _ 76a,216,ll,4 .: .: 323,100 539,87,7 : ,620 365,080 ~04,446,529 . -: ,27,950 _. . 13g,184~ _ ~71 _ . 1933 . 1,s1s,s37,635 _ 9 ,~~9,700 46s,aas,1;1:1 ,. . .. 3,34e . ,135 . . . . 152,500 . _-. 211,~s4, ~ _. . 1932 -_ 1,5og _ ,2a2.053 2, 011,600 _ 473 _ ,~? , . 430 , s5 _ s,e23,535 .. 21~ ,~30 -.. 103,27,2,2~3 : .. : . 1931 ~,-782,904;048 '\ 9:,,,.91,-800 . 542,~~,88'! . ... . : .... . 476,083,402 . . 282,340 ' ._ 76,397,045 . .. 1~30 .: 2,006,6Q4,709 : . . . ~ ses,4'08,l~ . . .... 019.648 . 006 10,4~0 ... 31;338,073 ' . . : 1925 2,109,438,654 123 _ ,075 ,100 sso . ~ . 244~666 _. . .. 518,406.85~ 374,eoo 29.7~9,201 . . . .1~~ _._ .. 2,371 ~ -~3 ' ,77~ ue, : o~l,~77 354,9~ ~S48 . :: .. '.' ... ' . .. . 63'7,781,~ . 80;~1,~8 _ 0 . l4 , ij69 _ ,9S _ . .. ... .. ' . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .Year . . : . . Ohio .. .. . I . . , : : V1r51n1a . . . . . . . : . .. . . .. Now York . . . , _. . . . . . . . : Ji1. sâ€¢n . '. . . . tâ€¢tge . . : fl1 1 .l Iei'ge . Smal+ _. ,._. targe .. : . sna . u . . Iâ€¢rge . ._. _; . 1051 f'ie, . ,e1,~i! Rl . ,as, A112,s1e,e22 1s~.~' - â€¢"io U6,@~,!'1e . ' ,, _ ,,, ,1 . s~ . 1Ja~ _ 1s, ,363 .. .. . 1936 259,817;986 .: . ' 561~600 --?71,146 . ,286 . 148,881,460 259,745,572 ' 5,823,265 . . 220,8~6,564 . : . . _ .. 1935 .: 255,941~175 . . . 113,00Q 190,:s6s,09~ , 1 . s2; . 0~ 1 93<;) . 254,0le~a0s -.. 4, 144, 220 22a,&50,4~ . . ~934 .. .. 253,222,3~~ . .122,~o . 1a7,l.3~, . ooo 196,.751 . ,010 . .. 250,00~ _,287 4 .-~ 6 . ,420 . ~29,362.,891 .. . 1933 . 213,~ 16,486 1,051,.aoo : 150, . ~,2i1 . 11 1,'7~0,040 . 266,414,838 . ,830,610 : 195,~97,261 .. _ . 1932 : 268 . ,l~;L,451 . . 345,5QO _ ..1~4,090,4'~ . 244~22 . 2,'l40 372,.?~,~64 5 . 926, . 460 . . 199,400 1 697 -. . . . 1'9 . 31 . . 352, ~ 236,185 ~~-. s1,ooo 22s,919.450 284,539. ,640 .. 47e,oa3,~2 -_ ~ . 13, _ 220, . 049 . 247,134',422 .. . 1930 . 388,804.,580 . . 3~,Q46,085 338,818 : ,09.0 _ 6~,271,~69 11.7~8,040 238,~37,814' . . ""~---.,.....,....'<.. 1925 544, 520,671 .. ~~600 356,413,390 _ 103,84~,060 .695,557,.524 9,163~430 : . 314,477,117 1920 ... 791,7 . ~ 1 116 ~31,8'75 463,660,124 . . 47 ,~8,500 1,l39,493jl~9 ... 60.387, 340 . 357 , 618,232 . : SOURCEi . . . , . . . .. .. . . . . . . . ' .. . . . . . . . . . ' ., I I . . . . .â€¢ . .... .. ' . . . . ' . , . .. . . . ' . .. ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' ' , . . .. . . . . ::a:: . . . t'-11 ' ~ , . . ..... ~ .. . . .. : ..... . ,~ . <:) . . .._ . . . ""' . ..... . . . . ..... '-ii . . ' . . . . :-... .. .. , .. . . PAGE 122 . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PER . CENTAGE OF . TOTAI; .' WITHDRAWALS oF LARGE " er . GARS . FOR .. CONSUMPTION . . . . IN ' LEADING STATES . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . 19~, 1~25, . 1930-1937 . . .. . . . . . . . ' , . . . . . . . . .. . ' . : . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1937 : 1936 _. 1 . 935 1934 .. 1933 1932 : 1931 1930 . . . 1925 . PeM:$ylva~1~ : 37 . 45% 36.64% 37 .71% _ 39.Q'7% . 317 _ _-57'%, _ Florida _ 15. 96 _ 1 4 .17 . 13 . 56 . 1 . 1. 93 . 10. 83 Neâ€¢ ~~rs~y ll.5ff 11.77 . 11.08 11.15 10.31 . . 34 . 44% 33 34% . 34 05% 10.ao 10.1, 9.59 12.68 8.90 : " 13.91 . ' . 2.36 1~ 43 . .53 32.64% 8.51 . 8.02 _ . , 46 . . 29. 28% . . 4 .38 7 .ea .1a . South Carolina 5.48 . 4 _ .88 . . 4.02 2~92 4~ _ 92 . Ohio 5 . 25 : 5 . 02 _ 5. 44 5. 60 . 4. 97 6.12 6.59 : s. 59 9 78 . 8.42 . . . Virg!1.ia 5.14 q.24 . 4.24 4~1~ 3.49 New York . . 4.46 5.02 5 .44 5 . 54 6.20 4 . 43 . . 4. 24 5 48 s ~so . e~9o a~e ~ 4. 55 .4. 6 , 2 4. 05 5.51 . 5.73 10.76 14.07 . . 4 87 4 42 . . . .. . . Mich~ga:n . 2.79 4.27 : 4.89 5.07 4.56 . . . 2. 7o . 3. 42 .. Indiana .. . 1. 95 1.93 1.7 7 1. 6'7 . 1.52 West Virginia . 1.80 1. 70 . 1.90 : 1.88 1 . 70 . 2~01 2.~1 . 2.48 1 . 20 . 93 1 49 . 1 .41 .98 : . _ California 1.38 1.32 1.29 1 .00 1.05 l,ouisiana . 1~38 1.39 1.39 1.19 .98 New Hampe . hi~~ ._. 1.19 ,. 1.20 _ 1.24 i.24 1.os . 1 .. 11 1.32 1.30 . . . 1 10 . , . 9 9 1 .01 . l: 02 . 78 . . . 69 â€¢. .30 .-20 20 : North Caro11na .79 .70 ..~6 . 55 .52 .. l!as~achu~etts .78 .79 .. . .96 .. 95 . 1.04 . . Illinois 70 . 74 . : 02 .86 . 74 1.17 1.24 1.33 6'7 . . '7 5 . ag . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 .. 1.34 1 25 1 05 1.02 . . .86 .31. .38 1.83 2 . 36 .. 1 .69 2.99 s OURCE: Annup.1 R~ports ~ of the Conun1ssioner of :Internal R e-venue, 1920-1938, Washin g to~. . . , . . . . . . .. . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

PAGE 123

l . ' \ .. . . .. .. '' .. ' . .. .. ' . . .. . . .. ' ' .. .. 112 , . .. .. " : '. : ' .. . . 'â€¢ . ' , ' 1938 (1) : 1937 1936 , 1934 1933 1932 1931 1928 1927 1926 . . 1921 i920 SOUR ' CB: ' ' . .. THE CIGAR iNDUSTJl . Y OF TAâ€¢P~, 1.LOBIDA . I . ' . .. , . ' I . . ' , .. â€¢, I . . . .. , .. ' . . . I ' ' . . TABLB: 24 AVERAGE RETAIL PRICBS OF CIGARS " .' II' 32 : o rTtM SPICIFtEI> MOJâ€¢l'BS . . . . . ' 1 . ' -. . ' Decan,her . J,,n,, ... 11a reh S eptember J1m-, llarch . . Decenâ€¢her Sept~1nber . July . Apr 11 Jarmary o . c . tooer July March Wove1rib er . ' J,111e Dec.ember June . . December Jun1t December Jun" December June ' December June D _ ece2nber June December J1.1ne December December September May December i920-1938 . .. ' .. . 'â€¢ ' , ' . ' I . . .. ' ' . . .. " I : , . . . . .. .. . ' ' ' . . , , . . ' . .. ara . . . . '' ,, I . ' each 4 6 4.6 , 4.6 4.6 4.6 4 .6 4.5 4.6 . 4.5 . 4. ' 5 , 4.6 4.7 4 .9 5.2 4.9 ' 4.7 . , .s 4~ 7 5.0 5~2 . 5.5 a.o 6.6 7~6 7 .8 a .1 s.o . a. 1 8~2 8.4 10.2 10.3 10. 4 n . o ' ' . ' .. Oent . . . ' . . .. . I .. Bureau of ~1eultura1 Econo,111ce, on Tobac~o Stat1et1ca, . D~cembe~, Report 1938 , .Waah:11'18ton. Ati11rual . . . . ' . . ( 1 ) . _ Est ,mated. " ' . ', '. .. . . .. . ' . . ... . .. . .. â€¢, . . ' â€¢. ' . \ ' ' .. .

PAGE 124

.. . . , . . TA B LE 25 . . , . . . . . . . 'ONITED STATES IMPORTS AND RECEIPTS . o F TOBACCO PRODUCTS : FROM . . N~NCONTIGU _ OUS . ~ R _ I~ORIES , : BY . PR(?DUCTS AND COUNTRIES . . . . FISCAL YEAR . ~, J.9 . 12-19:57 . CIGARS AND CHEROOTS CIGARETTES . Year Cuba, . Tot . al , Philippines Puer . to T9ta~ Philippines = . _ Foreign . . Rico .. Foreign . . .. . . . 1000 countries . . 1000 : ~Countries 1000 .. ounds 1000 ounds . . 1000 ounds ' thousands 1000 . thous ands o:unds 1937 4 . 4 33 . . 5 3 . .= . . , 193 . 6 64 . . 64 . -: : . . 3767 ." 53 . 3 . . . . 65 . . . . . ' . -. 1935 . 48 49 . 396 . 6 . e1 3 . . s .. .. 1934 34 . ' 34 . . . 2523 .. 55 . . . . 18 . . ' 1933 . . 42 43 1941 63 .. â€¢' â€¢, . 6 . . 1932 .. 122 . : . 123 : 2176 .. . 122 ' . 'â€¢ 8 , 1 . 931 299 300 1950 1 6'7 . . 6 . : . 1930 , 331 . . 349 .. ' 1878 . i46 . .. 10 1929 381 . . . . 387 . 2332 . . 159 . . . , 23 19 28 3gi .. . ~96 . : 2605 . 144 . :. 37 . 1927 . . 400 . 405 ' . 2915 . ._ . 161 .. . . . . 32 1926 ~. 479 . . . 483 . .. 3 28l 215 . . . . 20 1925 458 483 3017 186 .. . 2 . 1924 413 . 423 . 3411 ' 175 . .. .. 6 . . 1923 . 454 . . . 3995 . .192 13 . .. 4 _ . .. 1922 . 381 1505 .. 140 7 : 1 192 1 . .. . 475 . . . 4184 1s2 . . 11 . . e . 1920 " . 6'75 . . 3g5g 227 . 11 . . 10 . , 1919 . . . 428 4332 . 149 49 .. 'â€¢ . : 7 . . 1918 . . : 4'r9 ' . 485 4018 ,. 17; 8 . 12 191'7 . 661 657 . . 2069 . 205 . 17 21 .. . . . . . . Puerto Rico . 1000 . ' . : thousands . . . . . 5 . . 4 ' . . . 4 . . . : . . 5 . . . 3 8 20 e . 5 5 5 . . 4 Q 4 1 . . . l .. ; . . l 8 . . 1a 4 . 8 . . 1916 54,4 : 664 . . 1082 -' . 157 37 , 16 7 . . 1g15 .. 601 . . 506 . . Q4l . _ 170 54 . 11 . . . 1914 . 623 . . 636 . 902 . 1e1 . . 67 21 . 1913 . 659 .. 6 . 64 1642 . 166 .. 48 . 39 1912 653 658 .. 897. . . 1eg . . 19 .. 14 . 8 . 5 . . 8 11 . SOURCE: Forei . gn Conanerce and Na,iigation or the ~nited Sta tea; : Bureau of Forei gn , and Domestic , Comm~roe, 1912-1937, Washington â€¢. ~--=-.....,-'-~-........ ~.,.. ~ ~ - â€¢-~ ... -~":<.,--=-~ ~-...." ' .,, . . . . . . . . . .. , . . .. . . . ' . . . . . . . . I I . . . . ' . . . . . . ,. ... . . ' . { . . . . . . .. t,J . . . , . . . . . . :

PAGE 125

. . ' . . . : . .. .. .. . : . . . . I O ' f o â€¢, . ' . 'a . . 'â€¢ . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . ' . . .. ... . . . . 114 .. THE C:ICA B iNDUSTRYOF T.AIIPA , . FitORIDA . . . â€¢, . . ' ' , . . . . . " . . ' .. . , . . ' . . . . . . . . .. . . . I \ ' . . ' ' I . . . , . ,,, .. .. . .. . ; . TABLE 26 . . . I I . . . .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . UNITED _ s~A'.l'Es EXP oRTs A?ID SHIPMENTS oF ToBA.cco . . monucTs . . , . _. . . , TO . N _ O'.NC 0N~ l GU-OUS . . I rOR IES . . .. . . . . .. . . 'â€¢ . 1909: 1937 .. 1 . . . . . . . . , ' . . . . . . . . ,. Year . . . . . . 1937 (Z) ' . 1935< . 2 > . ' . . . . . . . .. . . : . c1 farettes . . c . M 1ilon~) . . . ' u IJ : _ .. .. 5, . 66.? . 4 628 ,.. > , ,.. 4, 614 . ' ' . .. , . . . . ' c 1gare an~ phjeroote . ( Jlillions) . 16 5 . . ll .. . . . . 1935 1934 .. 7 ' . . . .. l933 : 1932 . : . 4 ,001 . 3 029 . -_ 7 ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . . 'â€¢ . . . â€¢, . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 1931 . 1930 . 1929 1928 1927 . 1926 . . 1925 . . ... .. . 1924 .: . . . i923 .. 1922 . 1921 . . 1920 . . . . . . 19 19 . 1918 . . 19 17 . . . 1916 . .. 1915 1914 1913 . . . . . , . . . . . . 3,52;5 . . 4 ,5!7 , 7 . ., 7 064 , . . .. . .. 11,852 . ' . . . 9 061 . . . . . , .. . . . 9, 236 . . â€¢, 7 . . ' . ., . . . 8 . ' . ' . . . 8 . . . . . . a . 7 . 14 . . . rt . .8 ,964 . ... . . . . .. 10 146 . .. . . , . . . . 14 12 , . ()08 . . . ll..814 . . . 9,742 . , . 12,060 . . . , . 17, ' 13,69~ .. .. _. 9 , , 20Q ..... 6,525 . . 2~659 . 2 , : 165 . . ....... 2,5 . ~7 ... . . 1. 978 . . . . . . 9 .. . . . . 9 . : 11 . .. . \ . . 27 . '16 . . 42 . . ' 26 10 .. . . g . ' ,. . 9 . .... 10 .. . 12 .. . . . . . 19 12 : .. . 1,673 . . . . 12 ' . . 1911 1910 ' . 1909 . . : . 1, . 26 $. ,â€¢ . . 1.65~ . . .. :, . : . 1 , 6 22 . . ' . . . . 9 . . . 10 .. ' . . . 13 . . . . . I . â€¢. . . . . . SOURC . E . : Forei g n Conime~ce and .. Navigation of the Unit~d . . Sta te,s; an:d M9nthly Si.1~01~ry of Forei g n and ~nJe&t _ ic : Commerce of . the _ ~ . ted Sta _ t . es , 190~,-1937 . Bureau . . , or Forei g n and Dome~t . 1c .Oonu11erce , . Wash~ngton. . . . . + . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . . . . . .. .. (1) : ~iscal years . endin g . Jun~ 30, _. 1909-1935. . . ( 2) . Calendar years, 1936 and . ;i_9 37. , : . . . . . :: -' . . . . . . . . . . ' ,. . . . .. . . . . . .. . , . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ' ' . . . . â€¢' . . .. . . ' ' . . . . ' . . . .. â€¢,. '. . . . . .. ' . . ' . . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . , . . . . . , ' . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . , . . .. . â€¢' . ' . . . . ' .. I . . . . ' . .. . . I PAGE 126 . . ' ' I l . . . . ' . .. . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢. .. ; APPENJJIX . . . . . TABT.R " 27 . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . TT'Wl ... 1920(l) 'â€¢ . . . 1920-1935 , . (In . ntous,inds of' Pounds) . . .. ':: . ~1prs . .. . . . .' Cigarettes .. 1.006 -' . . .. . 39 6,5~5 ... ." . . 126.~ 390 ,869 113,-305 . 382,748 . . 105>~1 . . 385 ;373 .... . J00.685 . . _ 380,116 . . 135 .,oo~ . . . 401, 29~ 151~517 390,781 . 1&>.689 368,022 124.5~ : . 34~ ,440 . . U'7 .ooa "' . . 322,564 . 116~422 ~23,531 '. . . . . . ll4.2'15 .. . . . 298,186 . 93,l.62 , . 270 ;~92 . 92.951 26~ _ ,029 113 .~2 248, 422 . . . . na.~ : . 233;108 . . . . . . . . ' 1 15 ' SOURCE: Cons1i11â€¢Ji lt , l.on and : Production . of' Tob~cco in Europe, by J. B. Hu~so:rru~ . . .. . . . . . . . . . : T~~n from PoC'tt11-1teet 59 . , Export Trade in and B y-Product . {! ses of _ Tobacc~.Uni.tad States Goveri,ment Printin g Offic . e, .. , . . . Washington . ~ . 19~. . .'â€¢ , (1) . Incldes est:!u,ates for six co,int _ ries . i.Il 1920, four in 1921, . anq. t1r0 in 1922. . . . . . I . . . . . . . TABLE 28 . . . .. PER CAPITA op . CIGARS . A.HD dTGARiST'l'ES IN E 'LTR OPEAN . ' . . COUNTR I es COllttPtRkl> IJITH THE UBlTkl> STATF.8 . .. , . . . .. . . i932 . . . . c Po,mds) â€¢. < . . :qn i ted ~ States Au stria Be igi11m . C z e . cho slovak:i ." a . . .. \ ' :Ce nmark Fi n1and Fr ance . Ge rman-y; Gr eece (J.) . . . . . H u _ ngB.I'y I t a ly .. : .. N e the rlands ~ o r:way P o land . Rum ani a Sp ain . . s eden . 1: __ ted _ Kingdon .. -r ~ ~;: os la 1 J ~i a -. . . . . . .. . . Ciga~ .89 . . . .. . . . 25 . .40 . . . .16 ... 1.27 . 03 . . os ' 92 . . . -.08 . 21 ,. 2.26 04 . 02 .01 .1 4 "~ .c'-' ' . . . . . . .. Cigaret : t; . es 2 32 . . ' . 1.85 . . 1. 63 . 1 .6 9 . ~83 . . 1.33 .... 97 1.0 _ 6 1. 56 ' .46 . . 68 1. 22 ' e 43 l . 56 .2 9 . 70 060 . . . .â€¢ , . C3 2. 33 . . . . o~ . 79 . ,. . . . EC'UR CE : Consumpt ion a;nd: Pro duction of Tobacc o i n Euro pe, by , E ; Hut son. . . . . -.. . . , Taken Fr om : . Unit . e d St t es De paJ$t~n t of Agric u l ture Bu ll etin t; : ,, 58 , Tob f;l:cco . S t at .:s~:i c s , ; liia. y , -~ ~37 , Washi~ g ton. . . ' . . . . . . . ( i ) E~ t i ma ted. . . . . ,, . . . . . ' . . . . . . .

PAGE 127

. . .. . . . . . .â€¢ . ' ' . 116 . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . ' . ' . ' . ., . ' ' . . _ THE CIGAR INDUSTRY OF TAâ€¢P.A~ FLO"!JIDA. I . . . ' . . ' ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . 1 . . . ' . . . . . : . . , . . t I . . ' . . . . ' \ .. . . ' . . ' ... . . . . . ' I . .. . ' .. ' . ' . . . . . . . ' . : ' . ' .. . . . ' . ' . ' i 'â€¢. ' .. . . , ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . --PER CAPI~A co~~UMPTION . OF CIGARS AND C IGAR.Jfi"'l'ES Year 1938 1957 193 . 6 1955 1934 . 1933 . 1932 . 1931 . 1930 .. . 19 . 29 1928 .. : 1927 1926 1925 . 1924 .. 1923 1922 . 1921 1920 1919 . 19.18 1917 ,. 1916 1915 1914 " . 1913 1912 I .. : 1911 .. i910 . 1909 ,, 1908 " .. . IN THE UNlTEI > STATES . . 1900-1938 . . . . Cigars . . . . n11mber . . .. . . ' . 39 .5 . . 40.5 . 39 . 6 . . : 39 5 4 . . 'â€¢ . 38 4 . , ' . . 3 6 .5 . . . . 37. 5 . . .. . . .. 45 .3 50 . 1 56.4 .. . : 56.6 : . 58 .3 .. . 59. 7 .. . .. .. 60 . 3 . : 61.9 : 66.2 . : . 65. 7 . . 64.3 . . . . . 79 8 . . .. 69. 0 . ... 72.0 .. . : : BO.I 76~1 . . . . 71. 4 . .75.3 ao.1 . 77~6 . 77 .8 . ' 76.7 75.1 . 7 9 2 ' . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . ' Cig~rettes . numb~r 1312.3 1254. ' 6 . --1184.0 1055.6 992.0 8 _ 88.7 .. 828.9 . 9].4.2 ' . 972.0 . 979 .s . 883.7 . : 822 2 76._7.6 696.l 627 .3 : . . 577. 9 . . . 487 .5 .. 470. l 418.8 . . . .. 426 .4 366.0 340.7 . . .. 250 . 4 180.6 168.5 . 163 . 7 . . . 139. 0 107 ~8 . . . . . 93. 7 . _. 1907 . . ._:=. 8 6 .4 . 67.7 61.0 . 59. 5 . . 1906 . 190S . . 1904 1903 . . 1902 : . 1901 1900 ' .. . 84.4 . . .. .. 82 3 . . . . 82.0 . â€¢. 84 c. .. . . . ' .-u . . . . . . 77. 7 75. 0 .: 70.5 ' . ' \ . . . . . ' . . . 44.5 . . . 40.4 39. 4 3 1.a 33.6 29.5 34.9 . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . SOURCE: Compiled from monthly ' statements of ~ith~w~ls of tax~paid ct gar~ . by . ~he Coi,a,,1ss1oner ot Int&rr,al . J;levenue and . popUl~t:1:on reports or the Bureau of . ' .. . ' . ' the Census .; 1900;.:.1938, , . Washington. . . '. ' . . . . ' . 1 ' . . . . . . . . ' . ' . ' . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . ' . . . . . . . . .. .

PAGE 128

. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . , . . . A PP EN DIX . : TA E , LE 30 . . . . , . . . . . . . , ' ' . 117 . VAL UE O F T II E PRO DU C TS . OF 1 T H E C I G AR A ND CI G ARETTE I ND U S TRI ES A ~ D TF~ .I.R PERCENTAGE O F T BE V A L UE O F TOTAL TO F AC CO Y e ar 1 93 7 1 92 7 1 9 19 1 9 0 9 s oUR CE: . . PRODUC T S I N THE U N ITE:) STATES . . . . .. C :. g _ a r l?dus try . . $169 ,ooo ,ooo 3~6,ooo,ooo 371 ,00(? ,ooo . 214 ,000,000 1 90919 37 C i g a r % to . Tot a l To b ac co Pro d uc ts . . . C~ c e.rett e rndustr y C i 0 ar et t e 'I. to Tot~ l T o ba cc o Pr odu c t s$ 968 ,000, QOO . 76% 5 5 1 000 000 4 8 ; . , 398 , 000 . , (?00 41 ,000,000 .. 3 7 1 0 ~ ureau or the Ce nsus, Cens u s of Manufacturers, Tob acco Industries ; l909-1937, . Washi ng ton . ' ' TABLE 31 . . . . . . NUMBER OF WAGE EARNERS IN THE To r .ACCO PRO DU C T S GR O U P Yea r 1937 Tobac co Product . s Group . . 92 ,158 IN TBF ! UNITb:D STAT E S 1 9 1 9 . 1 937 Chcain [: & . Smoking Toba cco .. C i garettes & Sunf-f Cigar . a ' ' . 55 ,879 . ' 26,149 " I 1936 _ 9 0,200 56 ooo , 18,100 18,~00 19,700 . 1s,ooo _ . 16 000 16 :100 ' 16,400 18,200 1935 1934 193 3 1932 193 1 1 9 30 . 1 9 29 192 8 1~27 19 2 6 1 9 2 5 . 1 9 2 4 1 92 3 1 92 2 19 2 1 ' ' 1 9 2 0 1 919 ' . . . ~o , s oo _ 101 000 . . , 99 ,700 9.7,9 00 99 800 . . , 108, 400 116 100 . , J.g5,7 00 ' . 129 , 300 1~5,500 132,~00 136,60 0 ' 146 ,300 . 1 4 6 ,400 1 5 0 000 , 15~,ooo 1 5 7 ;100 . . . . 56,000 63 ,-100 . 66 ,900 . 67 ,100 . 68,200 77 , 600 . . . 84 200 , . ag ,aoo . . 94,600 91,500 . 96,700 . 99,700 108, 8 00 i09,000 111,9~0 1~4,900 114,3qQ . 13,~00 14,100 14 500 , . . 15,900 18,1:00 . . , 16 , 700 i4 800 ' , 15 500 , ' 15 500 , 1 5 ,900 16,509 17,500 1s ,aoo 21,700 . 16,800 . 17 ,100 17,500 . 16., 5()() 16.,000 â€¢, 17 ,.soo 18,000 19,200 19,900 21,400 21,'600 20 900 , . 20,600 20 . ,300 2~,1 0 0 SOUR CE : I _ n te r:p~l Revenue Reports an d Cens u s Re p or t s; 1919 1 9 3 8 , : Was h i ng ton . , . . . I . . . . . . . . ' . . . . ' .. ,

PAGE 129

. . 118 ' . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ... . .-. . . ' .. . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . .. . . . â€¢, .. . . .. . . ' . . . ' . . THE CIGA R JN[)USTRY . OF TAMPA , . FLORIDA .. . . . . ' . . . . I .. ' . , . . . . , ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . ' . . . ' ' . . . . . l ' . . . . . . . .. ' . ' . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' . . . ' . ' . .. . . ' .. ' . â€¢, . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . ., . . . ' . . . â€¢' . . . . ' . . . . . TAELE 32 . . â€¢. . ' . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS . WORKF!IJ IN . THE TOBACCO PRODUCTS . . . . . .. INDUSTRIES OF . THE UNlTE:D STATES . , . I : . . : . 1919~1936 .. . . . . . . . . . . ' . . Year . . . . Cigara . : Cigarettes Ohewi~ and _Smo~1ng Tobacco and . Snuff . â€¢. . . . . . ' .. 1936 3 4.3 . ' 35.7 . . 1935 . . . . . . . . 36 ' 6 .. ' 34.9 . . . . . . 1934 36.3 ' 34.3 . 35~4 . 3 . 5.4 . . . 54 5 .. 34.3 . . . ' . 1933 . ' 1932 . 1931 : . 1930 .. 1929 1928 . . . . 1927 .. ' . 1926 1 . 925 . . 1 92 4 . . . . . 1923 ,. .. : . . 19?2 .. . ' 1921 1920 . . . J.919 . .. . <\ . . . . . . . SOUR O E: . . . . . . . I 35 .4 .. 39. 2 . 42.7 . .. ' . . 48.-5 . _ .. 48.7 48.8 . . . 48.g . 32.6 38.3 " . . ' ' . . 41 .8 . 45.5 . . . . . . 43. 2 . . . 43. 4 . . . . . . .. 43-.2 . . . 43. 2 :. : . ' . . . ' . 38. 5 42.0 4 7.3 47.0 4'7 .1 . . . 47 .2 . . 47 . ~4 49-. 0 49 .1 49 .2 . 43.3 . 47.5 . . . . . . . . 49.3 49 3 .... . . . 49 .2 .. 49. 4 . . 49. 5 . . . 43 .. 4 , ,. . . . 43 'Z v . , . , , 43.3 . ~2 . . 49. l . 43. 7 . . . . . ' . . .. . ' 47.6 . . 47.7 47 . 7 . _ 4'7. 6 . . 19.s . . -$7.9 . . . . . . Prod~ctiol:l,, .. Employment ~ ~~d Producti vit . y; in . Manufac tu.ring indus tries; Part III, . Tobt:1 : cco . .. Products . . Gro~p, 19 . 19-19;36 , . wor ks . Progre~s ~dminfs ~at10J?. \ Natio~l Research . Pro _. ject, Wash!ngton, 1939 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. t . . . . . . ' . . . , . . .. . ' . . . . . .. . . ' . . .. . . . . I . . . . . . . I . \ . . .. .. . . . , . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . ' ' PAGE 130 . . . . . . . . . FXPRNDT TUTI"RS :ron C . 111.l\R TABLE 33 ADYERTTSING OF TE A D IN G 1938 Tot al ' . .. . . ' American To ba.o no Co. ( N . Y . )$127 , 555 â€¢. . B ayuk C ig~r . s, Inc. _ ( Pa . ) . . 953 ,7 05 . Qongree a Cig~r Oo. ( N. J ) . 187,9 62 Corie ~li~ated _ C iga r Cor~.( N.Y .)284)518 $162 . . 5'7 1; ~5 9 1 817.., 962 26~,112 527 . . . , . . CIGAR CO M PAN IE S IN VARIOUS CHA N NELS .. , . . . . . ' .. . Oha;.+?l,fladiq . t . . ea , 458 . 272,306 . . . pop J\103:R: . t 39 ~ 935 . . 109,440 . . 1;,,oe , . Fandrich , H~ Inc. (Ina . ) 60,239 . G II . P . . Cigar Co . _ (Pa.) . . 22 6 , 476 oeneral Cigar Oo~ ( N .Y.) 9~3,913 . . 226,476 . . 8'? ' 2, ~64 . . . . . . . Lorillard . , P . . Co; (~. Y.) l.4, 448 Penn T ol;>acco Co. (Pa.) : 4 ~0 50 . . Regensburg, E. & So na, Inc . (N .Y. an 4 Florida} _ . 62,036 Wai tt and B o nd Co. ( _ N . J.) 66 ,393 . . . . . 62 ,0 36 ' 31,901 81 ,122 . . I I . . . . I . . 1, . 964 . 35.685 . J I . . . 32 ;528 . 7 . 328 We bste r~Eisenlohr , In<:! . (N . Y.) . 12 4 1 13 5 To tal . . .$ 2,877, 4E?8 . $2,299i821 i 104,494 . . . t 420 ,4'76 t ~40,639 : ' . SO . URCE : Data f u rni nh ed by Bu rea u of Adve rtia:ing, American Ne â€¢~paper Publiehe . rs Ae ao . c1at1on, New YQrk, .. Au g ust., 1939. . . . . TABLE . 34 . . . . .. EXPENDITURES .. FO , R OIGARETT . E ADVER'1'ISING . BY FOUR : LEAPINO CIGARET . TE . . . . 1938 . . . Nam~ of C 9mpa.,ny . American Tobacco Co. Li gg ett and Mye rs Toba c co Co . . R.J. Reyn o lds T . obacco Co. P. Lorillar d 06. ., Total . 11; 449, 30 0 9 ,2 88 ,23 9 4 , 950 ,122$ 33 . , s ,sos . . ' . . . N~wspa.pE?I'S ( l} . . $3, o oo , ooo 7 , 25 0,0 00 . 5 , 50 0 ,ooo 3,400,000$ 1Q~iso,ooo M!l,e;azines $2 ,068 ,579 . 2~508,930 . 2,788,p55 805,269$ 8,170,833 . ' . SOUR C E: Data. furnished b y Printer's Inlr Publications, New York, (1) . Exp enditure s fo r newspaper adv . ertisin g are for 1937. 1938. ' . -. MA~UFAC'l:ORERS . . . ' . . . .. Radio $2,653,566 . 1 689 , . 370 . . 1,ooo,1sâ€¢ 7441853 t a ,aa? ,; 1 12 . . ' . . . . . . . ..., r' CC) . . . . I . ., , . PAGE 131 . . . . . . . . . . . , . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . .. A . . . . . . . . .. . ' . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 35 .. . . . . . . . WAGES, ' MA~ERIAt COSTS, . AND . VALUE OF PRODUCTS .... IN THE CIGAR INDUSTRIES IN . . . .. :. THE UNlTE:I> STAfJ1e:s ' . . . ' . . 1959.;.1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . ; . . . . . . , . . . Year EstablishWage _ Wag es . . . ,. . Average . Wages Annual . . : . . W~~k;t.z~ l) . Material Cost T s 'Vaiue ot . . : .. : inen:ts E~rners . . ---. . . . . -, . .. Products . ' ' . . . . . . . . .. ' 1 9 3? . . 695 55,879$37 , 522, 22~ _ $671 . 49 .. â€¢.: . t 13. 4:3 . . 1~35 .: 746 ' . 56~019 ' : 33,5 . 03 _ ,47t ' ?98.07 ,. .. . 11.96 t . 87 , ~41,365 . . t~69 . ,236,768 . . 77,807,476 .. 151 ,254, 7_07 . . . . .. H : "' .. . 0 . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . 1:93-3 .. 665 : 54,558 30,060,615 650.98 11.02 1~31 1,063 : . 6 8 jl82 46,074,0~3 . :_ : 675 . '7.5 13 .s2 . . . .... 72 . , 589, Q39 139,372,193 : 119 . ,295,1~ . ~27 ,3 48,832 . . ~ . .. : . 1929 l,._587 . . ~4, 166 67 . ,2~2,095 : '798. , 68 . _. 15.97 1927 < > 1, . 9so .. 94,sss .. 7s,470,211 0oa.73 . ie .17 . 1925 2 2, 4-45 1 ~7 , 1oa . â€¢. 99 ,373 . ,421 .. 848 .s6 . . . 16. 97 ... 1923 3,405 108;814 , . 9 _ 0,858 . , 119 834.-99 . . . 16~70 1921 . 4, 07~ _. . 111~855 9 _ 1;529,872 : 818.29 .. . 16.3!7 . . . . 1919 .. 9,778 114,299 90 , ,418,318 791.07 . 15.82 _ 1914 . 13,298 . 140,955 . 63,932,071 . 453.56 . . . 9 . 07 . 1909 _ 15,146 129,518 sa ,.ss7,790 . 439~ 23 .. , a.7a ... 1~04 16 ;3~4 .. 135,419 . ss , 0s3, . Q~s 412.s3 . .a.25 . . . 1899 14,522 . 103,365 _ 40 ,86Q ,510 . 395~ : 35 7 .91 . 1009 10,95s a7 ,ooo . ;5e 475 ,oao 419. 25 . a .39 . :. 1879 . . 7 , ~45 . . 53,297 . 1~ 1 464 . ,562 346.45 s.93 . . 1869 . . . 4,631 ' 2 . 6,049 9,098,709 349.29 . . 6 _ .99 . , " 1859 . 1,478 , 7,997 ~,531 ~354 . 3 16.54 . .. . 6.33 ,,. ' . . . . . . , . . . . SOURCE: . Un . 1t ed Sta tea .. Cenaua arid , Census or . Jla.nufacturea , . B\\reau of the ( 1 . ) Weekly â€¢age base a. on 50 working weeks. = (2) . Includes o i g ar~ttea. . , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 138,354,260 . -311 ,663,83~ . ' l:48" ,01:4,075 . . 338,966,702 .. _ :. 331,350,~2 . 6 .. : 874,814,564 . 178,444,498 .. .. ~sq,a _ as,aao , . ... . . . vs . . : . . . . ~ . . . . C) ~ , 1~3 , 3ss . , 693 : . . 371,273 , ao7 .. 16 . 8,815;218 . . 360,396,074 .... " .. . .. _ 97 . ,914 . ~457 . . . 23~,4~, , ~40 ;. . . . ' . . .. . . es,21s ,ao3 . ~14;62i 1 345 .... . . . . . _ 81,131 . ,-5 61 . . 214,343,551 57 ;828, ~55 . 15 . 9 ,95~ ,811 .. _ 50, . 29~,960 . ... 129,693,275 . ... 29 . ,577 .,833 63,979 ,575 13,047 , ;s~o . . 33 ,373 ,a0~ . . 3,511,312 . .. 9,068,778 . . . . ' . Census , 185~1937, Washington . ~ . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . ' . ,.. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .' . ' . PAGE 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . I. . . . me M:X . . COST OF MATERI,AI.S AND LABOR OOMPAR ff:J1 W ITH TOTAL VALUE OF PROD U CT CIGAR INDUSTRY IN . THE UNITED STATES ('l'houeande) . . . . . 1828~1937 . , . . . . . . . . Year Val ue dt Product .. 001t .. ot Ma t er1al1 ( l) . Peroent to Ooâ€¢t ot L&bo1' ( 2 ) Peroent . t o . Value : ot â€¢, . . . Value ot . rr2~ot . . . 2 â€¢oduqt . . 193 7 . . e 169,23'1 , t . . 87 ,3,l. . . . . 1936 . 1e1,a . ee 77,807 1;e3 1!9 ,!78 . 7a ee9 . ' .119:aee 19~1 8~7,!69 . . 1ss; e11;ee, _ .. .. . ~a,ee, . . . . . . . e1, e _ _ e1., . . . . . : . e : 1 ,:1 ' ea.a . . ,,., . . t 8'7,888 . ~!i~I ao oe1 ,e!o'7, 9'7,-11 as.~ 88,l 81,e 10 e a1 ,e . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IOtm Ol I Bureau ot the O _ en1u1 1 01n1u1 ot . ll&nutaot~â€¢ztâ€¢ . _ 'l'hl Tobaooo :cnd.uitrii1 . , 1989!7 , (l) . 001t Qt mat1 r.,-a11, oont&i'1tra 1 tu.â€¢~.t â€¢~ puroha11d 111otr10 . 1nezt17, Oo1t ot Intâ€¢~ . . revenue atamp1 included. tol . lon . ~ lw~a, ts,e99, 4ae, 1981, t1e . ,ea,,,e,, -. : . .. ( 2) . Inclu~ea . wage onl7. . . . . : ... ' .. ... t . . . . . TABLB 37 . . AVERAGE W&!F:KiJY WAGES PER . WORJ PAGE 133 I . . . ' .. .. ' . . . . . . . . , . . . 1 22 ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' ' ' . '. . . . . ' .. . . ' . ' . . . .. . . ' . . . . TO E CIGAR I N D US . T ]J.Y OF T.AJIPA , FLORIDA .. . . -.. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ' . . ' . . . . .â€¢ . ' J . . . . . . . ' . . ' . . . . . . . . . 'I'ABLE 38 . . . . . .. ' . ' . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . I . .. . . ' . . . . . . . . .â€¢ . . . . ' . . , . . . '. . . ... '. ' . . . . .. .. . . . . SUMMARY INDE:x:Ed FOR . 1â€¢HE , CIGAR INDUSTRY : . . ' . . lN . . THE UN . lT&!D$T-A'Jtks . : . . . : . . 1919-1936 . . . . ' . ( 1929 _ :::lQO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' Year . . . . . Production Empl:-o)'Dl~nt Man-hours ------------O:Utput per . Out-put per Wage . e,rner . Mari-hour ' . . . . . ' . . 1 9 36 . 77 .6 66.5 . 49 . 6 .. ll6.7 . \ . . 1 9 35 70.5 66 . 6 : . 46. 9 . l934 ; 68.8 . . . 75 : .0 . . . 54~5 105.9 91. 7 . . . . . 1 9 . 33 s5.5 . . 79~5 . .. s 7.a . . . 82.4 1.56.5 150.;s 126.2 .. 113 3 . . . . . 1932 . . 57 . ,3 . . . 79.7 64.2 . 1931 a1.9 . . s1.o .71.0 1930 90.4 . . 92 .2 . . . 91. 8 . 1929 ioo.o . ~o . o.o . . . 100.0 . 1928 . 97 . 9 .. 106.7 .. 106.9 . . ! 1927 . 1o0.3 112.3 1 12.8 . 19~ , 6 .. . , 99.6 ... 100.7 .' 109.4 1 9 25 . 99 7 114 8 . . . 116 8 . . I9 2~ . 102 . a . . 118 5 . : .. 119 7 .. . . . . 1923 . 107 .-6 .. 129 . 3 . 130. 9 . . . 1922 106~ 1 . 12 9 .6 . 131.2 1 9 21 . . .. 106 . 7 . 132. 9 . 134.3 r 1 9 20 ' . 125 .9 . . . 136.5 . .... 138.5 1 9 19 : 112.3 . I.3 5 .a : , -: 130 . _ o _ .. . . . . ' . 84:.4 101 . 1 98.0 . . 100.0 . 9 . 1.8 . 89 ~ 3 . . _ 91.6 , . a6 .a 86.8 .. . 83. 2 81.9 .. . . 80.3 92.2 82 . 7 .. .. . . . i04.8 115.4 98.5 . 100-0 91.6 0e.-9 . 91.0 . 86.1 85.9 . 82. 2 . so.~ . . .79.-l 90.9 01.4 . S OUR CE: ... Produ ' ction, ~ployment , . an~ Produ~ti ~ity, 1n ' _ .. Manu.fac turi ng Ind,1s tries~ . Part +I, Tob~ceo Products . .. 'â€¢ . Gro1:1p; 1919-~939, Work ' s Progres s Admi~istratioh N at ional R~search Pro . Ject, Washington, 1~39. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ' . . ' . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . ;.. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . \ .

PAGE 134

. . . ' ' . . . . . . . . .. ' . . . , . . . . . . , ' ' . . . . . . . . . : AP . PEN DIX .. ' . ,â€¢ . .. ; . ... ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . .' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . .. 125 I . TABLE 3 9 Y ea r . 1 938 1 937 . IN TERNAL ' . _ .. ,u~ RECEIP T S . FROM TOBACCO I N TBE UN I T ED STATES . 1913-1 9 38 .. : (Fi s . cal . Y ears) . _,.. ' ' . . ( THOUSA ND S O F DOLLARS) . PROD U CTS ' . . . ' Large q 1gs:rs ... Sms 11 C _ i i; a~et _ tes Manufactured All Tobacc9 . Tobacco Productsll.1 _,;.__,;______ _,...,_.,;.....,;__,_ __ . ............................ . $. 1 . 2, 751 . .$ 4 9 3 , 433 â€¢.' $60 660 ' 2 > .$ 5 6 8 182 1 936 . . . 13,247 . 12~228 ll;q92 ' 476, 0 27 .. 42 5 ,4 8 6 . s1' 697((~) 5 5 2' 245 . . ; 2) . , . 62~016(2} 5 01,166 1935 19 34 . 1933 1932 193 1 193 0 . 1 92 9 . 1928 ' 1 9 27 1 9 2 6 1 9 2 5 19 2 4 19 2 3 192 2 192 1 . 1920 1 9 1 9 . 1 9 1 8 19 1 7 1 9 1 6 . 191 5 . . 11,~33 11 ,305 1 ~ , . 208 18 ,025 21 141 .. . , 22,549 22,879 22,545 38,319 _ 43,347 . 45,205 ~7 ,27.3 . , 44 , 1$4 . 51,(?77 .. 55 . , 424 . . 36 ,00s . 30 ,034 24 ' 800 , ' 22,171 . . . . 385 , 4 _ 60 349, 6 62 32 8 ,418 . 3 17, 5 33 ~58, 9 15 3 5 _ ~ , 8 16 341,952 301,'?53 27 8 ,929 2~4, 8 25 225,033 203, 6 51 182, 58 5 150,i20 135,0 5 3 . 151,262 90., 441 66 , 37,l 3 8 ,127 26 ,333 20,920 20 502 . . 60,884(2) 459,178 62,087 425,169 55,450 . 402,739 . . 58,030 . 398,578 50;377 444,276 60,098 450, 33 9 _ 61,159 4 _ 34,445 . 62,775 396,450 65,070 .376,170 .. 67,711 370,666 . 66, 922 345, 247 . 66;700 325,639 . 68,858 309,015 66,342 270,759 ~9,~31 255,219 . 74,664 295,809 57,491 : . 206 , ' 003 . 47,485 156,18~ 35~661 . 103,203 . 33 ,37~ 8 8,064 ; . 32 , 198 79, 764 . ' 1 9 1 4 .. . 19 13 20 ,'986 . 22 ' ;852 22 _ , 7 95 . : . , .â€¢' 17, 8 28 53 , , ooo 79, a16 52,34~ 76,470 . . . .$ O URC ~: B ureau . of . In~&i-Ml Reve~ue , Anf.[ual Reports, 1913-193 . 8 . ; . . Washington. . . . ( 1 ) r n elu,.des _ als o ~ece.ipts f'rc;>m . snuff, large ci g arett e s, . small . ci . g ~s; and certain !tdscellaneous tobac~o t~es. ( 2) S n u f;f i ncluded. â€¢. ' . . . . .. . ' . . . ; . . ( . .

PAGE 135

. . . I " . . . ' . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. THE CIGAR INDUSTRY . OF TAMP.A, . FLORIDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' I â€¢. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . ,. .. . . . . . . . . . : ' . . . . . . . . l . ' . . . .. . . . . . TABLE . 40 . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . : INTERNAL REVENUE RECEIPrS .FROM CIGARS . . BY STATES ' AND . TERRITOR I F:S . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . FISCAL YEAR -. ENDED . JUNE 30 , 1938 . ' . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . , . . ' . Collection District , . . . ' ' .. . Total Receipt . a from . C1ga-ra . s . . . Pennsylvania : . Florida . .New Jersey . . New York .. . . . v1 : rgi:nia . . South Carolina . ;.,J)h i o . . . . Philippine Is . lands .. Michigan .. Indiana Cali.fornia . West _ V1 rg1.nia , . New ~ami)sh1~e Connecticut .. Massa chusetts : . : r111no1s North Caroli na . Wisconsin . . Missouri Texas . . . Maryland . .. . . . . . . . . , . . . .. . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4~0Q5~265 21323,382 1,854,5 . 95 . 609 _ ., 734 . . . 569,183 _ . . . 537 ,~83 . 530 ,.963 .. 402;667 : 371, 241 . . 2 . 36 ' ,826 . . l.99., 489 . .. .:. . . : . ' . 173 ,575 , 153~ ~~ 1~1,~53 . . 115,716 . . 105 1 989 \ 97,2~ 64~170 .. . ~9 .,316 30,188 . . .. ... I . . ' . . .. {ffiror g ' ia . . . . : . . : . â€¢' 25.,036 . 21,050 . ~8.,169 , . Rhode Ia land . 4 Minnesota _.: . l? ,6 _ 52 ' : . . . l{en . tucky . .. . . ._ All o th er Sta tea .. : . : ' \ . . . 9,050 . 227 ,911 t _ 12 ~aai;~b9 Total .: SOtmCE: â€¢. .. . . . . . . . ,: . fueau . of ~nte~~~ 1 , Reve.:Q,ue ~ -~nt ernai Revenu~ Col _ lections, Fiscal year _ 1938 , . Wa shington. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. . . \ \ ' . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . I . . . .. .. PAGE 136 â€¢' . ' . . Year . 1938 , .. 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 ' . 1929 . 1928 1927 . .. . . . . . . ~eri . can Cigar . . 7 9% . i i ) . . . 8 1 . ) , 12.3 . ( l) 15.l a.2 8.4 e .7 Deficit Defi ' ci t 5. 6 â€¢' 9 .5 9.6 . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 41 .. . . . . ' , . . . PERCENTAGE OF . lf.E"t EARN:tNos TO NET WORTH OF . I:S:ADINO CIGAR :MAN Ult'AOTURING COMPAN . IES . ... . IN THE " UNI'l'S:D STATES . . .. . 192'7-1938 .. . . . . . . . . . ' . . Co . . Bayuk Ciga:r . s , . Inc~ l) Congr~ss . C~gar Co . ns o lidated .. Cigar corp. . . C o. , Inc. . . . . . . . . 12. 3% 9_-9 9 9 ' . 10 . 6 10.4 : 7 .5 . Deficit . 2.4 4.8 . 10 6 ' . . . . . 10. 6 . ' 12.0 . . . ' ' .. ' . . . . . . . . 1.04% 1.9 3.8 3.0 0.2 Deficit 3.6 . 3 .4 . ' 16~7 29.4 ' 33.2 35 .5 .. ' ' . ' . . , 5 67% . . 5.8 5 .2 3.5 4.8 . . 3.1 . 5.5 . 7 2 . ' 8.3 . 11.4 12.4 10.3 ' . . . . . SOURCE : Moody's Manua:i of . In v estments Industrial Sec~itiea, 192?-1939, New York. .. . (l.) Eat1 meted from Moody's financial reports. . . . . . . ' . .. , ' . . . . . . . ' r . ' .. : . . General Cigar Co. , Inc~ .. . r . ' .. . . s.9% . 6 9 . . . . 7 .4 . 8.4 . 9. 6 6.2 7.0 9.2 11.0 . 14.6 14.1 16~0 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. ' . . ' . . . . . .. . . . PAGE 137 . . . ' . .. . I .. . . . . . . . TH~ CIGAR ! NDUSTB,Y OF TAMPA . , FiORIDA .' . . . , . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . ' ' .. . . . ' I . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . J .. .. . . . l . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . l ' . . . . . ' .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . .. . ' " . . . . . . . t . . . . TABLE 42 . . . . . . . ' . . . . ' . ' . . . ... . ' ., . . . . . . . . . . ' . .. . . EARNIN ~ S . .. PER SH.ARE . ON COIOIO~ STOCK( l)FOR I,EADING ~IGAR : . . . MANUFACTURIN G CO f .1PANIRS IW THE UNI,Ei> STAT~:8 .. . . . . . . . . . . . : 1922-1938 .. I . . . . . . .. . . . _ Yea;r .American . ............. . _ ... C !gar . Co ., BayuJt Ci g ar~ corigress Cigar 9~ns ol1dated , Ge~e ra1 ~ . In . c. , Cor, Inc. ; Cigar Co~p. c 1gar co, . . . . . .. -': 1938$ _ , 6 . 52 . .â€¢ $' 3 . 08 : .... . .$ 0.20 . 2 28 . . 35 t .. . . .. . 86 . . : t . 1.81 93 2. s o . . 1937 . 6.80 193 " 6 10 48 . : ' . 2. 25 . . .; 7 4 . ' . 54 .. . 3 .07 , . 1935 . 10 07 . . 2. 3 7.. . . 61 . . . . . 2.11 . : ;.06 .. -. 59 3.6 5 ." ' . : .. 26 4.1 9 :_â€¢ .. . 1934 . 10.00 1. 46 . s 2 . ' = 9 . 7 0. 7 9 . 1933 10.33 . i932 ' ' 1 0.;f:?6 . 1931 . -, -8.55 . 1930 . -10~95 . 1929 . 7 .85 . 19 . 28 . 21.11 1927 . 18.44 . 3 44 :. . .83 . . . 42 .. ~ .01 . . 1.25 : . 4.72 : , 3. 10 .. . 8. 23 . 2 .9 5 . . ; a ~ 5 2 . . ' .46 .. 3. 6 1 5.04 . ;. 5.01 . . , :, 5.86 ., 6.03 . . . : 9 46 . 8. 0 7 . 10 . 60 6. 85 . ' .. 10 07 . . 7 12 . . .. . . 1926 11 _-39 . 3 24 . . . . 7. 87 , . 2 19 ( ) . . . 6 .11 8.38 5.6 7 ' . 1925 ' 11.80 1924 .. 6 88 1923 c . 7 e50 5.41 " 2 4.95 8 29 (( 2 )) . . . 3. 36 .. 9 18 2 . . 2 68 e.49 11. ss ..â€¢ 1922 6. 91 . . i4:5s(~) _. .. 3:a2 . . . . . . 5 . 40 . . 12.10 1.27 . . 12. 7 5 5.33 . 11. 5 4 . . ' . . . . . ' . . . . . . ' \ , . SOURCE: Jloody 1 s. Manual of Investment~ ~ . Indus tr~als, 1922-1939, . New Yor , k. . . .'.' : . . {l . ) Number _. otoutsta ." nding .. co111111on ~hares as ~f December 31,i929: . . ' . Am~~ ican C ! g ar C9 200 : ~ 000; Ba-yuk Cig~ r~ Inc. 99 8 ~l . ; . , . . Consolidated C igar . Corp., 250,000; an~ ~ne~l Cigar Co., I nc ., . . 489 ,084J congress CI:gar . Co., . ~~350,000. . ( 2) B ased upon ol<:} capitalization~ . . . . . . . . . ' . ' ' . . . . ' . . . . . .. . ' I 1 .. ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . ' . . . . ' . ' , . ' . . . . . ' . .. l . > . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ' l .. ' . ' I . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 138

I . . . . . . . ,. . . PJ:O . . . . . I . . ,4P.PENDJ,X . . ' . . . . . TABI.B . 4$. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . CIGAR FIRIIS OP TAJIPA ' 1886 1~05 . . . . . . . . J . . . . . Pini ._ Location h,1or to Ta!T! . I . . . . . , Ybor . atd __ , .. . lla~a _ arid ~ey West . Xew York . . Sanches R:a;ya . . . LoAJIO, Pendaa amt . Co. Y. Pendaa am A.1.we1es . F . rpzano . Bali and ., Co. ,. . . , . . R. and Oo~ -. . ' 1few York &el 1 lo Po+a . and _ Co. .. , . .... . . . Ta 1 11pa ( . origin) Ilea York .. . . Seidenberg and Co. . . â€¢: Key West .. oâ€¢RaJ loran . and eo. , . . . . . Key West . .. : Teodor~ Plf~â€¢â€¢ 81111\;C _ o. . , . Itey weat s . P. P.le:ltaa aid Co. _ ltey weat : lul.11,a t1JfJM&a" and Co. . _. : . . . ~ West . A. Del P1Do . . . .â€¢ . . . J:e7 Weet . Bu~ti110 B1;0~ . and Dlas(l) :_ -~ ._ . ~ey Ciaâ€¢w-,. :t =-.nd . ~ Co~ . i ~1cago v ~ Gu~â€¢ ~ aml _ Co. . : . . J~â€¢ -. York J'Qan La h.â€¢ 11114 Co . â€¢. . . .. , : . . ' Key -. West . . B 0111racio Garcia lilld Co~(l!ort . Tampa) Chicago . Joa e aid ~o. : ( . P.c,,it T,._pa ) . . . . Key wea t .enelld.es ~J.vll .. am VerpJanck .-... Bew York and Cuba Gonza1ez~ --~ ~ Ibid. C(). .. : Iew . YQ~k -. .. Arguelles . Lopes and Bros. . : Bew York . . r ... Cue~ta, i,a11a1 d and 00.f . . , . Atla~t~ , . . .. . , . . Cuesta, R~ .__ Co. (I. . . . . A.;. B. BalJ"Cl ercJ Co. . . . :rr ujj . 11 o 11,td Bene1ea . . . Cb1c~ go . and -' Ke,weat F e1â€¢ndez -. . :. .: : . . . . Ch1 08.go , : . . . . F . Garcia Broe. .. . Ielir Y.ork . Pe:r ' ez and : Co. . .. . Key, West . : . Jose K. DJ.as a--J Broe. Bew . York 4 Aii. o~ O:tâ€¢tlz a,wJ Co. . . . . Bew York Jo se LcJ.,;;era a-wt Co. 'l'~ -(~risin) ... C1&1-ksc-, Broe. .. Tâ€¢:g,B ( . oi_-1.gin) . . . . ~:9_:~~t;!,c~!J . , . i::i;Jkrigi~) , : . St~chelbarg litd cf!) . : . . . . .. Kew York .. . . A . SantaeU. . CQ~ . . . lfew York, . B ~i=r hll!lm, ;B oa . .. _ . . -. . , ., . : : : ~ . . . Cld . ca.go . : . . . . . . . .: V al -: . .ln . t\JODQ . . . r; _{ . .. . : : . . . . .. Tqpa : ( orig!~) . . V . 11. ~r ~ Ce>:, ~ ~ . ; . . . --~{ ~~~g : in) SOUR CK = ( 1) . . . ._,ey ., ttie Old a nd the Heâ€¢"~ _ J . B. aroâ€¢u~ , l.9 . , Re~ord : C . oâ€¢rpaey , St. ~ugust1n ' e. Infqzm.a.tion .froilt h1.l!tor1cal â€¢r 1 tings of â€¢rs . J11ne Connor, . 1nt &rv~ewa th old resident~, newspaper files a,d dt1ector~e~, Tampa, 19~9. . . . . . . Fina at:111 . ope~tes 11). . Tempe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I I , . . . . . . ,_ . . . . ' . . ,â€¢ ' . ' I' . . : . . . . PAGE 139 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 128 ,â€¢ . . . . . : . .. . . . .. . . . .. . THE Cf CAR 1/f~USTRJ ' OF TA.Pd , FLORiDA .. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . : . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . '. . . . . . . ' .. . . . , . . ., ,. : TABLW 44 . . . . . . . , ' . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. MAJOR c 10AR FACTOR I RS CLOSBD . II TAIIPA TBROUCJB DIIOV.lL . TO A . . . . .. NEW LOCATIOJ{, ooxsoLil)ATION : OR DISSOLtJ'l' IOJ . : ' .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19~1959 . . . . . Pirma . Removing . to a Xe,r Lgoation .. J C t , 2 ~ , { ' Q V " i 11 . Date . ot Cl oalng . . \ . . . . . . . . Gonzale . a and Mendez ( to J(1ami . , Plor~da ) Ila~â€¢ 19 , 1928 .. Tei lâ€¢iro all4 Ga;ro:la . ( t _ o llew Yo~M:) . . . .2~â€¢ 1929 A. Outiâ€¢rrez. Cigar. _ oo .. ( to ;rerae,:) Auge is. .~929 : 11. Val1e and . Co . (to frenton, ,ew Jersey) n,c. 31, 1929 : . M. Sta _ chelberg and Oo . (to Tr _ enton~ lie~ J:er1197) . 11ar. 28, 1932 . . Amer1 . can _ Cigar op~ ( to Trenton, Jâ€¢raey) . 11ar. 28~ 19S2 ' ~ . Suarez â€¢~d Co ~ (t o : P.aaaa io , Bew _ Jersey} . . '. llar. . 25,, 1915 . . ThClllpa~n an~ Co. (to Bartow, . Plor _ ida) . .. . Jan. . 1 . , 1936 . .. . Tâ€¢~~â€¢ T ~ ig~r Cigar . co . :_ ( to ~~n~ nor1da) . Jen . l, 1989 ... Jose Bacal~nt, and Oo. (to Bew Orleans) .. .. . Jan. 1, 19~9 . . A~ and B . : Cigar . co. ( to ~,. . , Pl~r14a) _ . . . 1 ., ;9s9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pi1'1e 1 a C ona ol ida ting . ' . I a I o . Sanchez ilaya (with . Jfengler end . Jfendell) Wengler. and Jlâ€¢nd~ll (:w1~ Grediu;.~ia) Schwab-Davia and _ Co. (with Gl'adias,-Ar-n:t.a) . . . . I o . . . . Firxua Oloili C L . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . Pâ€¢m1eli and ~rengo : . " Arguellea, . Lopez and .. Co. . . . . . . . Eduardo . aonzalez and Co. .. Tampa Ouba C1gâ€¢~ Co~ .. : . Ser1se:no Bro.a . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . 11&7 : 10, l~St;) '. Jane ~ , 193.4 . . Dee.~~, . 19!6 ' . .. . . . . ' J.pr11 1, 1930 June 24, 1eso Dec. 12, 19~1 . 1la7 . 16,. 191 , . â€¢ov . f$,. 19S'I . . /i, I . . . . . . . .. . . ' SOlJRCB i Da t~ aupp . ited _ bJ Ii. Sack. se . cre~â€¢rJ ; Teitp.& Cigar . â€¢~uracture ra' -4â€¢~oc~at1o~, inteniewa ... . . . l . . . . . ' .. . . . th ~ _ igar â€¢â€¢â€¢~:rac:tui~~râ€¢ l.n , . 19S9 .1 ' . . ' . . . . 'â€¢ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢, . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ' . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 140

. . . . . . Years . .. 1935 . 1930 1925 . 1920 . 1915 . 1 910 1905 1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. : To tal Ci g ar~ . Produced in Tampa . . . 311,345 ,ooo . . 453, 226 , , 000 . ( 4 . ) 4 8 3 , 509,000 (1) . 227 , 792 ,ooo . 285 , 936, ooo ( 3 ) 201 , 405,000 . 220,430 , ooo 147, 848 . , 000 . TABLE 45 . CIGARS PRODUCED IN . TAMPA POP ULATION CENSUS OF . TAMPA .. . . . . . 1900-19 3 . 9 . . . . . Per cent of .. . . Prevj,ous Production . 6~% . 94 . 212 s o . .. 142 9 1 149 ( .. 2) 174 . . . ' ~opula tion Census . of Tampa . 100 ,15 . 1 101,161 _' 94,74Z 5 . 1,60 8 4$,160 . . 37 , 7.82 . . 22 , 823 15 , ~39 . . . ' . . . .. Percent of ... Previous . Population . 99% ' . 107 . 184 . ' . 107. 127 . 165 . 144 101 . SOUR . C E: United States Census Bureau , 15th Census of the United and _ the Interna l Revenue O ffice . , Tampa, . F lor1.da Sta. te _ s , .. 1930., Th~ TamJ:>a Daily ~imes, . ,. . . . . (1) . . . (2.) ( 3) ( 4 ) . . . . Tep. months strike, _ 1919 production 410,74 5 ,090 : . Estimated . : Six m ont h s strike ; . 1909 produ~tion~ . â€¢. ~2 67 ,059 tiOOO Peak prq _ duction , 1929 ~ . 5 0 4,753 1 000 ' . ,, .. .. . . . . . . .. .. , . . . . . . . . ~ ~ . ~ . . . ..., ro co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 141 . . . . . . . . . , . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . ' . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. ' . . . . . . . . . ' T'-BLE 48 : , . . . . . . . QUANTITY OF CUBAN TOBACCO IMPORTED BY THE . UWITED STATES, . QUANTITY o.F HAVANA TO P ACCO . IMPORTED . THROU J.H . TAMPA, .. PERC~'r O F TO TAL . ~VA}fA TO :-ACCQ IMPOtt'l'E:O THJ{ . OU ~ H TAMPA, TOTAL VALUE . . ' . . AND AVERA G E VALuE _ PER POUND OF TOBACCO . ENTERING rHE :PORT O F . .' TAMPA , FLORIDA . . . . CAI,ENDAR YEARs 1929-1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . ' . ( ' PATA !N laLLIONS . : o . F POUNDS) . ' . . . . . ' . . . ., . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 0 I . . . . . . ' . . . . .. . . . . _. H avana 'robacco . .' Per Cen t of' total Impo rted throu g h Havana . 'l'obacco . . . Y . ear . Cuban . Tobao~o . .. Imported by . . T ota1. value . of To . bacco Im. . A~era g e Value Per Pound U rl i ted stat . es : Tenipa , .. .Inworted 5 _ at Tampa . . . . . . . . . .. . ., . . . : 19 . 3~ ( 1 ) . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 193 8 . . . . . _: . 3, 734 , 17 4 . pow;ids . . 1 937 .. 13 1 792,000 _ p ounds 3 _ ;948,499 .. 1~3 5 11~595,ooo .3,e12,019 .. .... : 1 935 . . .. 13, 420 ;308 . . . . , 4,001 ,535 . . . ' " . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . 29% . . 33 .. . 30 ' ' . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . .... pprted at . Tampa : -:. . . ,$ . ' . . . ' o s0 . .73 .69 .68 . .69 . , 'â€¢ . . . . ' . . . 193 4 12 990 000 . 3 824 095 . 29 -. . 7 . 5 . , . ' I I J. . I . . . . 193 3 . 13 , . 11 3 , ooo . , . 3 ,39 . 2, 733 1 932 . i2, 4 ss ,ooo . . :: 3, a 7s, 9 i4 1 93 1 .. 19,189,000 4,829,:03 6 . 19~0 . 21, a 15 _ ,ooo . 5 ;429 ., _ 769 192 9 . . . 2 . 4 , ~78, ooq 6 6~8, 7 ~9 .. . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . ' ' . . . ' ' . . , .. 26 . . 31 25 . 25 27 . . . . . . ' . . SO~RCE-: . . Of~iqe o f ~he Collecto . r of Customs, Tam . pa, F loriq.a . 1939. Uni ted States Department _ of Comr. . eroe , W ashington. . . . . : .. .57 . . . 58 . . .69 . ' . ' . . .84 . . . . .90 . ' ,, . . . . . . . ' . Foreign Commerce Yearbo ok, 1931-1938 .' , . . .. ' . , ' . . . . ' . ' . .. . . ' . (1) ' . ' . . . T.hrou ~ h . ~ly, 1939. . ' ' . . . ' . ' . . .. . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . ' . .. . i,:... C i l 0 . . . . .. ....... . .. . . . . . .

PAGE 142

.. . . , . . .. . . . . ' . . . .. TABLE . 47 . . . . . . . . . . TOBACCO IMPOR-18-:Il . -~HR-OUGH THE PORT OF TAMP.A, FLORIDA . 1929-1938 .. . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . ' Ca lendar . Tq . tal Full . . Year : . (All .. Wrapper 1938 . 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 Tobaccol . . ' ' . 3 ; '7 34 174 . _. 28 602 . . . , . ' . 3, 94~ ,499 4 _ 5; 79 _ 4 . 3,812,019 1.211 4~00 . 1,635 24,685 3,8~4,0~5 " 69,866 ' 3,392;733 ' 16,549 3,8~5,614 ' 3,ij88 4;829 ,036 . . 5,574 . _ 5,429,76~ 11~443 _ 6,608j _ 739 . 15,331 . . . ' ' . Percent Percentage . . ~t . Wrapper : . Total . 0 1. 2 ' . 2 ' 6 1.6 â€¢, 5 ~ 1 -.-1 ~2 .2 111,057 113,059 87,0~4 83, : 450 55,919 31,338 27,038 44,798 .. 49 ' ,338 . ' 66,~35 . . . . . ( Pounds ) . Percent or. Total : I ' 3.o 2.9 2.~ . 2.1 . 1.5 9 . ~7 .9 ' . 9 1 . 0 . . . Unste1mned Filler . ,â€¢ .. . 1,648 ,409 _ l 836 998 ' , , 1,765,457 1,843,017 ' 1 555 3'76 , . , 1,424,622 1,424,717 _ 1,714,1!3 1,858,436 2;415,326 . . ~OURCE: United Sta ~es : Customs Of.fie~, T&1â€¢ipa, Florida, 1939. . ' . ' . . ' . . .. . . . . . P~rcent Scrap . . . . Percent Stennned . of Filler o.f Fill er T otal . . _ . __ _ Total . ' . . 44.o 935,622 25 .1 . 1, . 010;484 46.5 8~~,775 22.5 1,062,873 46.3 860,443 22.6 l,091,824 46.l 1029,053 . 25 _ .7 1,021,330 40.6 _ 722,442 . 18.~ 1;4;s<),492 _ 42.0 893,294 . 26.3 1,02s,930 ~ 9 .e 1109,321 20.s . 1,310:,950 35.,6 . 1175 ;344 . 24.3. l,8 89 ,147 34.2 904,994 16.7 2,605~558 36.6 . 892,0~6 13.5 3, 21-9:,961 . . . , . . . ' ' ' Percent of . Total 27 . 1 26.9 2e.s . 25.5 . 37~4 . 30 . 3 33.8 . ..'. 39.1 . 48.0 48.7 . . . . . ' . .. t-J (Jl1 t-J . . . . .

PAGE 143

. . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . ' . ' . . . ' . . . . . . 132 . .. . . . . " . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1aE c1qJR : INDUSTRY Of TJâ€¢P~, FLOR . JOA . .. . . . . . . .. . . ' . . . . â€¢, . . : . . . . ' . J . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Year 1936 .. 1930 1922 1913 . . 19 . 09 .. 1897 . . . . .. . . . . . . â€¢' . . . . ' .. .. . . . . . . . ' . , . TABLE . .. 48 ' . . __, .. . oENERAL RATE:S OF I MPOBT . DUTIES .OB ' . . . . . . 1883-1939 . . . ' ' I . . . . .. ' . . . ' . ~CTURBâ€¢ > TOBACCO . . . . . . . . Tat-iff Act . . . . . Ste,,nried unsteDll18'd . Other than Other than :. W rapper Wrapper _Wrapper le, Wrapp~r leaf ------. . . unstemned . ~t~n1ted . 1 . N e th er 4nde . . . Trade Agreement t 2. l~;pe~ 1~ $1 _ . 50per . lb _ aawley-Sm~ot . .. 2. 92t . 2 27 . t . . F~rdney-Mc Cumber : 2. 75 . â€¢. . 2. 10 Underâ€¢o . Od 2.50 . l .85 Payne . -Alprich . . 2.50 l..85 . Di ng le y . . 2.~0 . . : . 1.85 ~ . . . . . . .. . ' .$~~5per . lb t .qO per .35 . . . . 50 .35 . . . . . .so .35 . .so .35 . .so . 35 : 50 .. 1894 , 1890 Wilson~Qor11&an 2.25 . 1.59 .. McKinley 2. 7~ . . . 2 .oo .3~ . . .so .: .35 .so . 35 . 40 ... 1883 . )lorr.1.son 1.00 . . 75 ' . . . . . . . : ~Om:tCE: W ~ -N . B-er : . "Econoâ€¢raie ~velopment of the Cigar Indus . try " . . .. Lancaster, ~ 1933 . . ~r~i,r,a tion tr . om 09â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢taaioner ot Cust()Jl'.I~ Office, Washington and front United _. States 0_uatoxus . . , . . Year Office, . Tuq,a, . 19~9 .. . . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . ' . _. : . TABI.B 49 . . .. . J . , . . . ' . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ......,.....,._ . . . IJIPORT nm E8 OB UlOWWFACTURED TOBACCO FROM . OUBA , . : : 1883-193.9 ' ... ... . . '. . . . . . . . , . . . . . ' . , . . . . . . ' . ' Stan11r1ed. -' Uns teixutied Unstenmi&d . . _. W~pper Wrapper . . Fill~r and . . ~ , . . : Scr~p . . . ' ste,,,,.ad . . Filler . . . _ ___,, __ . . . . . . . . . . . 1936 Netherianda . . . . . . . , Ti:ade ~rdemen t . tl . . 7.2per lb . t1.~per lb t.28per lb t .. 40per I . 193~-:-36 ~};>an ~ra?~) . : . . ... : _ _ . . . . : . . ~eement . . . 2.3 . 1.50 .. 1930 Hawley~moot 2 .. 3 . . .. 1.82 .. 1922 . fol'dn.,y:..llc c ,.1mbex, : .. 2.20 : 1.68 1913 Underw:>od 2.00 , . 1.48 , . . 1~09 Pajne~ildr1ch . 2.00 . 1.48 1~03 Spec ~al (wee. . . . . . . . ment . . 2.00 . 1~48 . : 1897 l)ingley . _ : .. 2 . 50 .' . . 1 _ ~85 . . 1894 Wilson-Oox-2-en 2-.26 : 1~59 .. 1890 _ 11cK1iey . 2.15 . . . 2.00 : 1883 Jlorriso~ 1.:00 . . '75 . -: . . . ' . ' . . . . .17 2e . 28 .20 . 28 . .28 . _. . . .35 .35 ' ~35 . .35 ' . . . . . 25 .40 .40 . . ' 40 . .IC) ' J .. 40 .so . 50 . .so .. 40 . . ' . . . .. _ .. _ SOURCE;~ . Co,,rputed r;t-om . ~able o~ general . rates deducting 20% , trom ord1â€¢ . nary rates. _ C~nge ot dutJ,ea 1n l~S6 C\am11 aa a ~esult . of Betper.lands .. Trade Agreement and the 1:ancojl4itiona~ â€¢oat~.tavo~ed natl . on policy now . being . followed by .the "Jnited Stâ€¢'tâ€¢fl Department of . St ate. . . . . ( i) 1903-1939 By : speci~l tr~aty, . a .: redlic~iori. or 2()% lra1 grante4 . op imports from Cuba t o the Uni t ed Stat ea. . . . . . . . (2) During the Trade . Agreement . with Ouba ~under. . tbe Trade . Agreements Program )f 1933) . a applied to ~ban tobacco representing 1 8~ or. the tobacco 1mpo~te . d 1nto .. the United States dJ-ing the prec~ding yeia_r . This tre a 1;y was termina ~ ed and ." the quota abandon-,d 118.r . ch 16, . 19 35 1 : .apec . ia1 rates ~hewn ended . 6n that .'. date havin g : been 1n e:rrec~ , . ' ince Sep tembc,r 3, 1933 ~ . : . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . .. . . ' . . . . . . . ' " . ' . . . ' . .. . . . . . .. ' . . . . I , .. . . . ' . . \ . . . .. . .

PAGE 144

. .. . . ' . . . . . . â€¢' . . . . . ,,. . â€¢' . ' .. . . . . . . . . â€¢. . . . ' . . APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . I . . . .. : . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 50 . . . . . . . . . . ' . . , . . .. . HAND CIGAR PLANTS OF TAMPA .. (19). . MEM B ~ OF T.AJ4PA c1 G AR MANUFJs.CT-qRERS ASSOCI:AT:ION . c~r,ASSIFICATION ACCOfIDIN G TO . T Y PE OF , TOBA:CCO USED) . . , July 1, 1939 . . . . . . Clear Havana: . . . . . . . . . . Corral-Wo~iska Y Ci1-~ ( l} . . . Garcia and Ve g a ( 1 J . . J OS~ . Ar&.ngo . ~nd .Co. . . . La Inte g ridad Cigar . Co. Perfec _ to Garcia and 13ro s . Sal v~d or Rodri gu ez , Inc. _ ' . . Clear Havana and Shade ~ ' ~anco a~d . ~ango < 2 ) . . Be~riman ~o f\l â€¢, Inc . cue . ~ta-R~y and Co . . Gradiaz~Annis and Co. .. M. Bustillo -. and Co . Maiâ€¢celino Perez .. a?J.g : ) Co. . Morgan . Cigar : Co. \ . Preferreq Havana Tobacco Co . . Shade . A. Sant~eiia . and Co. . . E. Regensburg and Sons, Inc. J . W. lloberts and Son Lopez and Alvarez Cigar . Co. Villaz on and co. . ' .. . . .. . ' . ' . . .. : . . . . \' . . . . . . . " . . . SOURCE: . . Investigation _ of 1 9 Tampa hand ci g ar pl~nts, . . 1939. . 1 Bonded Clear Ha-.na Piant . s. 2 Op&rates C1ear Havana B onded ' Departmentâ€¢ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . . ' . . . . . . . ' . I . . ' . . . . . . ' ' . ' .. . . . ' ' . . . . . . , ' . . . ' .. , . I . . . ' . .

PAGE 145

.. . . , I . ' ' 'â€¢ . . 134 . . ' . . . . . . ' . .. . . .. . . . . ,, . . . . . ' . . . .. . . ' . \ . ' . . . . . THE -. CIGA R . INDUSTRY OF TA . MP A, ' FLORIDA .. ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . ' . . . .. . . . . . . , . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . ' . . .. ESTAB~ISBME.NTS ' PROP1!CINO C , I GAR~, cro~TTES _ AND . . MANUFACTURED TOBACCO IN FLORIDA , OTBkR . . . . ' 1915 1938 . .. . . . ' . . . Cig~:ret ~e .' . Smoking To . bacco, . Year . Total . Tobac c o . . Cigar Establish. . .. ments .. Establish. Chewing . T~bacco, _ men ts .. Twist, Cut Plug , -. . and . Snuff Estab. Estab lishments . lishmen ts . ' . . . ' 1938 182 . . . 2 . 4 19 37 197 . :, .: 2 . . . . 4 1936 206 . l . 4 , 19 35 . 230 . 'â€¢ .. . . : 1 .. : 3 . ' . ' .. , '. 1934 249 . . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . : 19 33 . . _. . 282 . . -' 3 . . . . ; . 4 . . . . ' . ' 19 32 295 .. . . 2 . . .4 . . . 193 1 2q3 . 3 .. . 3 . . .. 1930 270 l .. . . . 2 . . ;1.929 . 304 . 2 . : .. 12 1928 290 2 --~. 10 . 1927 297 , , 3 . . 3 . 1926 . 315 . 3 . , . 3 . . 1925 . 337 .. 2 15 . .: 1924 3'18 . , 2 . : 16 19 : . . 403 . 1 . .. . 17 . i922 ', . 433 . . 2 .. . . . 17 . 1921 426 ... 2 . . 18 . 1920 . . 339 . . 2 . . . . . 13 1919 . 'Z76 .. 2 , . 12 I 1918 . 29 3 . . . .. 3 1 . 2 . ' . . 1917 ' . 326 . 7 . . . 14 . . . 1916 . . 341 . . 6 15 . . ... : . ' . . I , 1915 ' , 356 . : . 9 .. 20 . . ' SOURCE: . a\u-ea.u or Internal Revenue, Ann;ua1 ~epprte, washington . .' . . â€¢. " TABLE 52 . . . . . . . . . ' . , . . . . . . 188 . 203 211 234 266 289 . 301 . . 269 273 . .. 318 ' 302 303 . 321 354 396 ... 421 452 446 . 354 . . . 290 .. . . 308 347 . 362 385 191 _ 5~1938, . . . . .. ' LOCATION OF CIGAR ESTABLISHMENTS IN . F' I.ORJ DA . ' ' . . . . . . ) . . . . : . July l, . 1939 .. ' . . . ' . . TamJe . . . 90 . . .. : Be..rtow : Key west . ;18 . Brooksville .. Jacksonville . . 12 .' Glearwa ter . M1ani1 . , . 10 . . Daytona BeP . ch . . Quincy . . . 4 ,. ' Gainesvil~d . Deland . . 2 . T,ekele.rid Fort lfyers .. . 2 . . . , â€¢elb9urne St . Augustine . ~ Ocala . . .. . 1 .. 1 . l '1 . . 1 . 1 . 1 l . . . . . . . . . . . St. p~ _ tersburg . 2 . .. . < Panania City . l . l . . . . . . . . . ; . Sarasota 2 . St. Cloud Winterhaven 2 . . San Antonio 1 . . , . . . . . . . Starke . . ., 1 .' . . Tarpon ~prin g s . , .. 1 Wauepula ._ 1 . . . 160 . . . . . . . , . SOUR C E: Bureau o f Inter n. a~ R~venue , Jackao,ivil).e o rrte.e , . 1939. . . . . . . . .. . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ' . . . . . ' . ..

PAGE 146

. . ' . . ' . . ... . . ., I . . . . .. . . , .. . . ' ' , . . . . . . . Nu]1lher of ~ Wages Establish. , .. . . .,,, . I tnehts . . . ' . ,. . . . . . \ ,. , . . 1937 . : 51 . $6,$61,141 . 1935 54 ... . 5 , . 848 , ~PS . , . . ' . . ' . . TABLE 53 . ' , ' . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ' . . . STATISTICS FOR '1'HE CIGAR . INDUSTRY OF . FLORIDA . . . . c LARGER ESTABLISHME:NTS . ) . :. . . ' , â€¢. : . 1890-.1937 . . . . . . â€¢\. . . Number of . . . Wa g e : Earners . . ' . , . cost of . Mat~ .. . Iâ€¢ . : . : erials used . , . .. ., ---~---. . . . . ' . Value of . Product 1 . .. .. " . . . ~,9p6 I . . . $12,663,092 : ,$24,~72 ,472 : .. -. . . 9 , 305 ,. _ 8,418 . 9 ' 202 , . 102 , . .. 19,727,265 . 0:17s,ooo . . 17,010,000 . . _ . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value added by . Manui'ac ture . . $12,309,380 .. 10,445;163 9 634 000 , . , ' . . . ' . .. 1933 : 42 . _._5, 084 . , 000 . . . :1931 . . . . 53 . 8 , 260 , , 478 . 1929 --~ 70 . . l~,164,819 ,, 10 ,229 . . . . l . ~, 0 _ 72 . .. 12,896,552 . 28,849,387 15,098,54'7 . . . . . 41,086,735 . . 14 . ,860 . ,835 . . : .. 39 , 8 . l ? . , 65'7 . . 15,952,839 2 5 , 988, 188 24 ' , 956,822 . 23., 714,0~Q 1927 : 87 : f-3~32~ ,259 . 1925 . . .â€¢ 120 . 12, 4'72, ' 4?7 1923 . .~ 12~ . 10 .,269 ,016 192:l . . 171 .. 9,116,154 1919 . 280 . â€¢' 11,$'1 ' 4, 880 1914 .. 270 5 ES38 229 . , ' . . . , , ~90~ 229 '1 , _ 169 000 .. 1904 200 5,577 ,ooo . 1900 128 3, 2i 7 , 530 1899 127 3,160,000 1890 86 3,~76,166 . 11, 164 ' . . 11~ 64~ 11,1ie . 9 ,529 . 12,39~ . . . 10,76 1 . .. . . . 12 ;280 _~.. _. 9 . ,657 6 ,461 6 ,3.70 .. 5 ,27 3 .. . 1s, 77 4, 278 .. . 40 _ , 488 ,ao ~ . ' 16,843., 069 . . . 35, 958,, 350 15 . , 726, 7 .. 08 . . 30,455 445 ', 15 _ ,534,255 . :: '37 ,926 ,394 . 7,738,661 : . . . . 19,385 . ,6 . 59 , 8,685,0QO . .. 2 _ 1~ 575;000 . 6,596 ,ooo . . 16 , 7 64,000 ... _ .. 4 ~ . 800, 21 2 _ 10,891,286 . 4, 7 ~4, OQO .. . . . . 10 , 7 3 6 ;090 . . . 3;841,844 . . .. 8 ,123 ,22(? . ~9 : , 115, ~81 : 14,728, ' 737 ... .. 22, 393, 139 .. . 11, 646 ' , 9 . 98 . : 12,890,000 10, 1~0 , 000 6,09~;074 6,012,000 . 4,281,~76 . ' ' soURCE: Bureau of the Cen~~s, . c . ensus of Manufaetu.r~ . s, 'robac co I~aus : try, ~ 8 ~0-193 7, We.shington. -. . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' ' l . ' . '. . . . .. . . . , . . . . . .. . . ' . . . . . .. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-' CA ' . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ' a,

PAGE 147

.. . . .. . ' ' .. . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . â€¢, . . . Total . . . .. . . â€¢, f . . . . A . , ( 5 . fi & less } . . . . . . TABLE 54 . . . .. . . . . . . .. ... . \ . . . .,. ' ' 'l . . .f . t I ' ' . ' . . . . . .. . . C. ,. ,â€¢. : D .(8.1 ~i~) . ._ ( i5~ _ 1-20f) _,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . : 1938 (~> -. a is , .9 40, 939 _ 703 ,03q ,390 1~ ,240, 983 . 97 ,00si : i49 .. 19 , . ~ 49 ,641 _ . 334, 775 . . . 1937 832,445, 7 . 45 . 696 , 59J; ,915 . 15 , 745, 200 .. . . 99 ,~9 1~870 . . ' 20 , 430,265 . 293 , 387 .. 1936 720 ' ,631 ,304 . 5~5 : .75'7., _ 501 . 9,8 26,1~4 . 92 .. ,9?~~054 ':I. 2~ , 8~8 . ,488 .. . 280~ 137 ., 1935 627,334, 617 51'1,s1:i;106 7,soo,88 . 8 _ 82,347 .. ;1~5 _,. .. 19,53 4 1 580 ._ . 240 ,86 . 8 . . 1934 541, _ s40 ,a2s 417 _ ,eoo 1 158 . â€¢. 7 ,205,7 43 _ 94,791:;9 . 73 . " .. . 21~768,938 . -. 274,014 1933 451 1 073 1 099 . _ 325,629,457 . 6, . 266, . 338 -. 95, ' 563 , j592 " r . .. 23,328,998 284,714 193-2 4~6,78? ,980 _ 292,497 , ~97 .. 5,1~ 2,556 . 133,73;1., 5 . 13 ' J 35,024,782 . 4~1~832 1931 . 532j249,S83 . 290,46~,694 7,843,925 . 183,019 ~ 747 . , :_ . so, 253 ,209 . e70,1oa 1930 . 5~9,187 ' ,8 . 67. . . 264,791, . 652 9, , 576,208 2+1,25?,460 .. _ 72,426,36 0 . 1, : 141,18? . 1929 .so7 ,769,~04 .. 254,aa3,s90 11,997,037 2p2,:1:-0~ ;13a . .07,197 ,655 . 1,502,2.94 . . l:,928 592,346,7&~ . 233,659,6~2 13, . 314, . 117 2s9 ,a . 2a : ,so9 _ .. 03,006,9 . 12 __ 1,737,519 . . 1927 s _ so, 851 , 2sp . 193, 535 r , 02s 12,323,390 . 257 3S'1, 934 95, 344,160 2, 165, "!38 .. . 1926537,657; '77_3 . l "ll , 686, 2"12 ~9 , 482; 789 26 _ 1, 04 . 6' ; 570 83,049 . , 134 . 2 :, , 393 , 008 1925 541,5 +2,oos . 1'71,-40 ~ 1,777 .. 2s,1a6,14l -~65, . 83~ ~ f?44 . . . . _ 76~610,213 2,473,230 l924 5 13,38 . 6,501 __ 156,3;31 ,063 25,459,136 267,~19 1 520 61, . 544,942 .. 2,431,7~ .: .. . 1923. 561;774,7 70 _. 158 ' j75 _ 6,980 34,787 ,540 301,449~700 : 62,816,985 3, ' 933,565 . . . . . .. . 1922 415;197,194 . 71,~02,219 ' 53,397,990 227,647 ~200 . 58,379,685 . 4,170;109 .. 192 _ 1 337 ,352 ' ,402 . ~~ ,332, ' 540 56, . 529;300 17 8 ,144;200 . 69,7 . 38 ,427 .. 6,6(?7 ,935 . 1920 . . 513,009,898 29,433 . ,390 . 99,9 46,740 329,743j 400 47,7;2,921 6 . ,113,~4"7 . .. s01JRCE: . . . . . Bureau of Interr1al Revenue, Annual R~port~, _ 1920-1958, Washington. â€¢, ' ' . . . . ( 1 ' ) . Est,mations bas _ ed upon the total revenue r . ece~pts r . rom c1 , gar. l!'J!inu.t'acturers reporteq. by t~e Bureau of Internal Revenue, C? . alendar year, 1938 . . . t . . . ... . . ,,, . of Florida . as . . . . ' . . . I . . . . . .. . . . . ~ . . -~ . ~ ...... . =t, ...... ~ ~ . t,; . ~ ~ C "'ti "l C . ~ b ~ . . . . ., .. . . . . . .. . . ' . .

PAGE 148

. . . . : . . . . . . . .. .. . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . , .. t . . TABLE . 55 . . . . . . TAX-PAID WITHDRAWAL OF CIGARS FOR CONSUMPTION BY r.r.A.ss:F:s . PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL . MADE UP . o F EACH CI,ASS . FLORIDA DISTRICT . . .. . 1920....:1939 . . . . . .. . . . . . : A . : . I ,: , , . s st ' e~ s i .â€¢ â€¢: ' . . â€¢. 19~~ < 1 > : _. a~~oo% . . .. . C . (8.l-.15f) .. . . D . . . ( 15 . 1~20,;) $1937 . . . ,,' 83. 68 : .' .: 1936 . . a2;s7 1935 . : a2.so 1934 -~ . :: 777 .11 1933 . .... :. 72 ~19 193'2 : . . 62.p4 19'31 . . .. 54.57 . ' 1930 . . : : . . 47 .36 1929 . 41. 9 4 . . . , . 1928 . 3~ .-45 . . 192'7 , ; , 35 .1.6 : . 19 2 6 . 3i _-91 ' , ' I 1925 3.J..-65 , . . . 1924 . .. ~0 .45 . : .. : . . . 1923 28.26 : 1922 1?~25 1921 7.81 1920 . . 5. 74 . . . . ' . . 2.96% 1.89 : 1.36 . l 20 . . 1.33 .. 1.39 , I 1.u ; ', 1 .47 . .: l. 7l. ' 1. 97 2.25 . 2.24 3.69 4.65 . 4.96 6.19 12.86 16.76 1 9 .48 â€¢. . ' . . . 11.ro,( . 11.94 . 12 .90 : 13 .13 . 17 .49 21.19 . 28 ' .65 34.39 37.78 41.48 43.86 . . 4:6.72 4~ _ .50 49.09 ' 52,13 53~ 66 54.83 52.80 6 . 4. 28 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' . . . : . 2 _ .30% ' . 2.45 . !3~03 3.13 4.02 s .1, . . 7.50 . 9 ~ 44 . 12.95. . 14.-35 14.15 . 15 . 49 â€¢' 15 ~ 45 14.15 . '. , . 11 99 11.19 ' 14.06 . . 20~67 . 9. 31 . , . . I . . . . E . . { oyer 20,:) . . . ~04% . .04 .04 . 04 .os . . ~06 .10 . 13 â€¢, : . 20 .. .-2s . 29 . .39 .45 .46 .47 ' 70 1.00 . l.96 l _ .19 . ' . SOURC E : Bureau of' Inter-:i1al Revenue, . Annual Report . a, _ 1920-1938 , ~ Washington. (l) Estimat,-on s . based . upon . the .~otal revenue receipts from ~igar m13nufacturera by the Bureau of Internal . Reve . nue, calend.aiyear, 1938 . of Florida as . reported t" r . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " f-L CA ;...:z . . . . . . . . . PAGE 149 .. . . . . . . .. . . ' . . . â€¢' . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 56 ' . . . I . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . '!'AX-PAID WITHDRAWAL Q F CIGARS F OR CONS IDIP TION BY CLASSES . Til ! PA DISTRICT . 1920-1 9 38 . . .. .. .. â€¢. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢' . . . . .. . . . ,. . . . . . . .. . . TOTAI.S A . B c . . .. D . . . E . . . (5 & less) ( _ 5.1-8) .. _._.: (8.~-15) . _: . . (l.~.1~20) â€¢, .. (over 2 0) . . . . . .. l93-e 374,627 ,30 : 4 . 241,67 _ 7 . , _ 180 .. 15,671,155 . 96, 895,9Q4 .. : 20, . 117 . ,388 .. . 265,61'7 . 1937 394,353,389 '. 2 ~9,145, . 090 . 15 ,959, 764 . 105,801 . ,35 2 . . ~,094,27'6 . 352,9 07 _, ... " . . . 1936 359,86~ : .~1~ . 227,017 ._ ,730 9,8 , 65,606 . . . 99)1:70,9~0 . . . .' . 23, 467,394 .. 347 , . 1 . 9~ . . . . , 1935 . 311,3.45, 76 195, 09 _ 1, 470 ._ . .. . 7,423 ;221 . 86 ~986 ,0'76 . . : . 21 , 560,064 . .. 28~ ,345 . .. . 1 ~ 3 4 29:4 ,.oa7, 535 . 167,967 ,-900 . . ? ,326, !?OO . :; 9 4, a~~, 782 . . 23, 61~, 21a . : . . . 339 ,,235 1933 . 2 ~1, ~86 , 612 169, 665 , . 831 s ,554, 200 .. . 91, 464.001 . 24.-902 . , 110 . . 399 _ , 782 . 1932 3~0,430~507 181 _ ,57 2,841 . 4,~22,'765. . 125,215, _ 153' . 37 ,~34,675 . . 585 ,7~3 -~ .. 1931 '. 408,968,112 ' 175 " ,339,587 . . 7;407,427 1~1,98'7., 224 . : ." 53,470;709 . ... . . 763 ,165 .19~9 â€¢_ 453,22e, . 491 1e1,~9,8 . 70 . 7,512 ~950 . 203 _. , . 166~376 . 7~,3~ ~ , 6~1 . . . 1, . 55~A6~4 : . . . 1929 5o4,"753,2es 149,940,900 . . _ s ~ ,~1~,350 .> 245 : ,846 ,-s38 . _ ge,20;3,45'7 .. 2,14-t,01:q . .. . .. .. . :J.9'28 490,174,558 . . 1 _ 31,949, 740 . 9,567, . 240 _ . 251,36'7,800 . ... 94,917~()25 .â€¢ : . 2,~72,75~ ... . . . 1927 . 477 ~ ~65,398 _ . 120, . 029,0lo 11,791,560 24 _ 5,780,290 96,851,669 2,91 _ 2)8 _ 69 19.26 ' 456,710,762 107 ,~67,44~ 16,558,646 :. . ~38,581,296 . 91,~~5;200 ' 3,178,180 1925 . 4e3,50~.00e : 126,-057;~70 10 ,ae4,340 2s9,307,930 e4,953,.396 3,305 ,45~ 1924 473, . 760,522 .. 128,723,878 21,847,609 251,957 " ,310 -. .. 68, . 13 _ 0,094 . 3 ,101 _ ,6~ _. .. . .. 19~ . 5 . 0l,37 . 8,49 _ 0 . 137,602,270 . 26,~18,730 . . 272,9~5 ,4'70 . 61,006 ,920 . ~,455,100 -. .. . . . 19~2 .. 424, 7'47 ,soo . 98 ,.2~0 ,s10 ._ 34,566,950 _. 234, ~oo ,:'~4 . . 53 , . 47 . o ,06~ . .. . 3 . ,. 791,5E;32 1921 . 315,403,070 . 16,036,2~0 91,194,899 177,184,650 . 65,633,780 : 5,353,620 " ,,, . . 1920 227 :, 7~1,!53 . . 10,837,098 46 ,914 ~~25 : . 139,067,234 . 27 , 509 ,650 . . ~,462,346 . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢, . . . SOURCE: _ . Bureau of I:ntt,rnal Revenue, Ta;mpa o~:r1~e, 1939. . . . . . . . . ' .. . . .. . . . .. . . ' . . . . .. . . . ' . J . . . . . . . . . .. ., .. .. ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . f-' (X) '" <:::> ::tt ..... t::, :a-.. . . . . ; . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . .. PAGE 150 . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . .â€¢ TABLE 57 . . . . . . . . " TAX-PAID WlTB-I>RAWAL OF c rGARS FOR CONSUMPTION BY OI.ASSBS ' . . ' . . I .. 19~8 1937 . 1936 193 5 . . 1934 . . ' , 1933 . . 1932 . , 1931 1930 . 1929 . 1928 1927 . 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 . . . . . .. A cs . & less) 64.52% 63.17 63.08 62.67 . 57 .11 58.11 . 51.92 42.88 35. 68 .. 29.70 26 93 . . 25.14 23.44 26.07 . 27. 1'1 2 . 7 .44 . 23.12 " 5. 08 ,. 4.76 .. . . . . . . . . , PERCENT OF CLASS~S TO ANNUAL TOTAL . . . . . . TAMPA DISTRICT . . . _l920 ... i938 . ,. 4.18% . 4.05 . 2.74 2 ~ 38 . . . . . 2. 49 .. , 1.90 1.38 1 .81 I 1 .66 1.71 . . . . . . 25 ~ . se% . . . . 2.6 .83 . . . 2"1. 56 27 .94 . 32.25 . 31432 . . 35.73 42.05 . . .' l . 95 .. . 2.47 . 44.82 . 48.71 51.28 51 . 49 . . . . . . 3. 53 .... . 3.91 4, 61 5.25 8.14 16.23 20.so . 52 . 23 . . . . 51.7'7 . 53.19 . . 54~ 45 . 55.26 ._ . 5s .1s : 61.04 ,.. I . . . . . . . . . n . . ( 1~ .i~~) : I . 5.3'7% . . s. 0:s . 6. 52 . , 6 92 . s.03 8.63 10.so . . 13.0!7 1-7. 5 . 0 1:g .46 . 19.36 . . 20-.29 . 20.00 . 17 . 57 .. ' 14.38 I 12 .17 â€¢. 12.59 . .20 .a1 . 12 . 08 . s oURCE: Bureau. of Internal Reve~e, . ~a,npa O.f'1ce, 193 9. . . .. ' .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E (Over 20) .on 09 . .10 .09 . .12 . . 14 ~17 , . _. 19 -' .34 .42 .48 .61 . . . .. 70 .ea .65 . ~9 .89 1.-70 1.52 . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., (,a co .. . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 151 ' ' . . . . . . . . . . Year ' . ' . . ' . . . .. , . . , . . 'l'ABLE 58 . . . . . . . ..: .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMPARISPN OF . CIGARS S . OLD BY PLANTS IN THE TAMPA D . ISTRICT, WITH SALi'S BY PLANTS . . IN FLORIDA . AND c IGARS MANUFACTURED IN THE " UNITB:r, sTATft:S {1) . . . . . . 192.0-1938 . . . . , â€¢. . . . .. . . . . . ' , . ' . . ' . . UNITED : STA'l'F:S FLOR . IDA DISTRICT . . . .. TAMPA DISTRICT . . . . . . ' . . , . . .. .. Ci g ars . . . Ind~x bas~d . Index bas ed Cigars .. I:ride~ based Ind~ x base~ . . Cigars . Index b ased Index based . on J.920 o:p. 1929 . sold . . 9n 1920 : on , 1929 : sold on 1920 on 1 . 929 .. M anufactl'ed . ' . . . . . .... ~ 0 . . ' ' . ::r:: ' hi ~ -.... . ' ' . . . : . 79.1 .... : :836~941 _ ,000< 2 >1e3~1 ... . 81.4 : . _ 8;32, . 44 . 6,000 16~.3 . . . 1 9 38 . . 5 ,153 ;-287 ;000 63 . 6 . 1937 5,303 , _ 369,000 : 65 ." 5 137.7 ~74,627;00Q . 1 . 64:5 . 7 4 .. 2 . 137 . o '394,553 , 090 . 1 ? 3 .1 78 . l ' :t:.. : . . 1 . 9;s. e ,l 7 2,279 _ ,ooo 63.~ 1935 . " 4,~8~,"370~ ' 000 . 5? .9 . ' '. . 79. 3 720 , . 6~1 ,000 . 140.5 71.9 ~~7~~~5, ._ ooo 1~2.3 . 118. 6 . . 359 , 869, 0 . 00 15 8 . Q . . . 71. 3 : . .. , . 103 ~ 2 . . 311,34!?~000 136 . ~ . e 1~7 : . t:, 1934 4.;525 #780 ; . ooo ... _ 55. 9 19 . 33 4,300,045 ,ooo . . 53 . 1 , . e9.4 541~ . 84~,ooo 1os.a . 55.0 451,073,ooo 87 .9 . 89. 2 . . 29 . 4 , 088, 000 . 129 .1 5 . 8 3 .. . c::::. . . 74~2 .. 291,9 8 7 ~000 . 128 . 57 . 8 .. . ,: 76 .a . _ 390 . ,431,000 153 .a 69. 4 . . .. . . 1$ 32 4 . ,3 8 2, 723 ,ooo . . 54.-1 _ ._ 67 .2 . 466;?88.000 91.0 ' ' . . 82.0 . 532 ,26 . 0 ,O -' l03.8 . 99 ~ . 559,188, 000 .... 109 . o . . ' 1931 5 , 3 47 . ,921,000 ., : 66.1 1930 .. 5 , 8 93 , . 890 ,QOO . 72.8 . . 8'7..~ . . 4qa,ss0,ooo . 1 7 9.5 . 0 1.0 . .. . c . . 92.0 453,226 ,ooo .. _ 199 .o 99 .s . ~ . . 100. 0 .504, 7 . 53 , 000 . 221. 6 100 0 . . . . . . . 1929 6,518 , 533 ,ooo .. 00.5 1.928 '. . 5 ,373 ~ ;~82,000 . 7.8.7 . . 1:927 . e ,519 ~oos _ ,ooo . -. ~o.5 ~oo.o . . .so'7, 7'70 ,ooo : 110.s .. .97 .0 . . 592,~47 ,ooo -. us.-s .. ~oo .o 550 . ,857 ,oo _ o . 10'7 . 4 . 97. 5 . . 490; 175,000 . ~15. 2 .. 9'7. . J. . . . ... 90.6 . 417~365,(?00 -. 209 . e , . 94.6 . .. .. 99. 7 . . . 537 , 658,000 : 104. 8 1926 6 ,498 : ,S41,000 . . 80.3 .se.5 . 456,711,000 . . 200.5 9o~ s . . 99.2 . . . 541,512, 000 10~.6 101.2 . 51 3,387,ooc;> .-. 100.1 1925 6,463,193,090 79.8 192 . 4 6,597 ,67 7 ,ooo e1.s ' 89.1 483,509,009 . . 212 _ . 3 . 95.8 a4.5 . 473;761,ooo . . 2os .o . 93~ . 9 -. .. 92. 4 . 50 1 ; 378,. 000 2 20 .1 99 3 _. : 106 . 6 561,775,000 . 109.5 10~ .1 . . 4 . 15 , 197 000 . ,, 80. 9 1923 .. 6,9so, . 247 . ,ooo . as.a 1e22 . . s,iz22,35 4;000 . a3.o . 68 . ~3 . 424, 74a,ooo 1 8 6.5 _ a4 .1 . 55 s .. 313 . '-40 _ 3, qoo .. 1 38. s . s2. 5 103 . 2 .. 337 , 35.2 000 . . 65. 8 l.24. 2 & $13,010,900 .. 109. 0 1 921 . 6 ;726 ,095 ,ooo . 83 : .1 ' 1920 8 , . 096;7 _' 59,000 100 . 0 84.4 ,â€¢ 227 ;791,000 100.0 45.1 . ,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,._ . . . SOUR . CE: : Bureau of Internal _ Revenue, Annual Reports a~ Monthly Repo _ rts, . 192Q.;.1938 _ , . Washington .. . . . Da. ta .from Ta,,cpa Office . , 1939. . ... .. . . . . . . ' ( 1 .. T,arge . Cigars O~y . . . . . . . . ( 2 Estin'.a . tions baaed upon tl)e. . tot . ai . revenue . receipts rt-om cigar mâ€¢nutactur~ra ot Florid-. as reportec1 by t . he 13ureaof tnternal Revenue, ca1:endax_ , year, 1938 .-. . . . . : . . . . . : . . . . .. ' / â€¢' ' . . .. ' PAGE 152 . . , . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . A i'PENDlX ! . 141 Year . 1938 1937 .. 1936 1936 1.934 : 1933 1932 < 2 > 1931 1930 19.29 . 1928 . 1927 1926 . . : . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 59 . . . ' . . ESTIIIA'l'F! _ l> PAYRO~ o~ THE CIGAR . INDUSTRY . IN TBE TAMPA AREA (1) . ' . . . . . 1926-1938 . ' . ,. . Pay;r o11 ' t s ,aa3 ,02s 6,283,103 5~781,688 5,os6, 1a1 6 ,213, 999 . . 4,971:,920 6,-464,165 7 ,905 ,097 .... 9,388 . ,399 10 I ~ 67 , 729 . . 10 ,5~8 ,396 . . . 10, 121, 079 . .. 9 ,44 " 6 ,037 . . . . . . . . (3) Index .. 62~3 6S:;5 61. 2 53 . 5 55.2 . 5 2. 6 . . :_ oa.4 83.7 99.4 116.1 111.a .. 107.1 : . .. 100 .o .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOURCE: Re . cords o _ f Temp _ a cigar . _plants 1 1926-1938; data . . from F.'lorid.a . Industrial Con1'J>1 ssion . , . l\139. . . . . (1) These figures do not . include salaries and commissions paid to ~ sales force. . . . (2) The figures from 1932 back to 192 . 6 include an e~timate ot the : payroll of ~:t?--e ... ~erioan Ci g ar Company which op . er~t~d in '1ampa through the first quarter. of 1932. One fourth or . the est:f}nate is 1n:cluded for the year _ . 1932 . . . : . ( 3 . } Base for this ind . ex; 1926 100. . . . . . . . ' . . . . TABLE "' so . . ... . ' . ' . . . NUMBE:R OF EMPLO.:lti IN TAMPA CI G AR FAC~ORIES, INCLUDING MACHINE FACTORIES, SEPARA1'l!.1) AS TO MEN AND WOME N 1930 AND 1939 . . . . . . . . . tro . tal . . Percentage . . . . EmplQy('es ._ Pe~oentage . T otal Distribut ion -. Employees Distribution . .. .. . 1930 " J l. J . . , . 1939 121 . . . . . . . 'l1 otal 6,997 3,12$' 3~87~ 1 I . .. Men Women SOURCE : : . ' ' ' . . . . . . 55% (i) F ifteenth Census . of . the ., United Ste : te:s (based .. . on all Tampa fac , tories) . .. (2) . Nine.t een . Tampa hand factories~ plus emp loy~es _ 1n ma . chine faotor ies, 1939. Data ta~en from .. pla~t records. ' II . " . ' . . ' ' . '

PAGE 153

. . . . . . . ,â€¢ . . .. . . . . . ' ' ' ' ' 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .. THE . CIGAR . INDUS.TRY OF TAkPA,FLORIDA : . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . .. . ' . . . . . \ . . . ' . I . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . ' . . .. . . . . ' p . . . . : ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' .. . . . . . . . ' . . 1 . . . ' .. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . . CLASSIFi:CAT . iON . OF . TAJIPA CIGAR. PT,A . NTS ACCORDIBG To . . . . . . . . , CA:PIT.AL~ZA~~ON, . ~ ,.pa, OU'l'POT, Am> EIIPL01RRS ._ 19 T.&IIPA PLA.B TS . . . . . . . . 1930 . . . . ' . . ' . . . . . â€¢, .. CAPITALIZATIOll . . ... " . . . . . .. CIGARS IWfUPAC;i'Uf ~935 . . , .. : 1934 . 1933 ' 1932 .. 193 1 . . . . 1930 . . . . 1929 1928 . 19 27 .. â€¢. 1926 . . ' . . " . . . . ' . . . . . .. 'l'tBieB 62 I , t . . . ' IBDRX o~ SAid:iS . OP CIGARS .. BY 19 : TAIIPA : coJIPANlffl . . . : 1926-1938 ,â€¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . ' . . ' . . . _. . Index C ~) . . . N,1mbe:r ot ~1.gara . aoid . I . I . ' . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . 93.6 .. . . . . . .. .. . 215 571; 7~6 . . 2~,496,~56 . . . 9 : 9 2 . . .. i.: 220,390~841 . 180,~41,865 . . . . 96 . 7 l 78.2 ' _ . -: ~89, _ 4 . 49,8 ' 47 .. . . . 185 , 442, 309 .. .. . . . 82 .3 .. 80.5 . lQO.l 110.6 : 230 . 323 609 . , , . 254 , 654, 610 _ _. . 267 . ,8f?1~365 . . . .. 300,552;412 . . : : . ~~a .. ~93, _ 614 . _ . . . . . .. 262 _ ; 193,234 . . . .. . ... . . 230,286,813 , : . . . . .. . . ' \ 116.3 134.0 . 121 . 0 . 113.9 . 100.0 .. . . .. . .. : .. SOURCE 1 . ~~venue bo oka , o . t 19 . TeJ4)a factor1ea ~ -. 1Q39 . .. . . . . ' ' '. . . . " ... . . . . . . . . . . (1 ) . . Index . ~ased upon : the figure for . 1926 100 . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' . . . 'â€¢ . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .. . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' \ .

PAGE 154

. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . . . .APPENDIX . . . 143 . . ,. ' . . ., . . . . . TABLE 63 . . . ' . . . . . ' . TAX . ... PAID . WITHDRAWAI.S oF CIGARS ' FUR CONSUMPTIO N BY CLASSES . 19 TAMPA FACTORIFa . ' . 1938 1937 . 1936 1935 94,45~:,783 92,697,~75 . 99,298,576 . 80,560,259 . 1926~1938 . ' ' ' . B . . . . 12 . ,374,341 . 14 , _ 97 9, 497 7 134 384 ' , , 4, " 568 ,898 C D E . ' . ' 88 ,572,077 19,927,572 2~'?,963 : gs, 157 . , 440 22 ,307 _ , 052 355 , . 392 90,458,6 ' 86 23,194 " ,541 304;654 74,864,537 19,953;575 19.,596 : . 1934 76, 724 , ~ 16 . . 76,273,822 . 81,778 , . 831 60,400,465 3 . ,866;016 . 2,889 ,0~6 3-; 9 2~ , 403 5,435,683 _ 5,217,591 4,952,485 : 5,545;946 86,047,051 22,577,649 . 234,315 " 1933 1932 1931 1 9 30 1929 . 1 9 28 . 1927 1926 59 ,387 ,05'7 .. . " 63, 79 . 0, 340 42, 3~8, 248 , 30,888,945 21,572,066 6, 29 , 9 ,839 5 ,578 1 361 . 82,235~~75 23,742,615 3 ' 01 ' ,650 _ 112,088;577 32,12~, . 270 40~,528 13~,310,881 49,843,376 664,205 . 139, 355 , 3 . 80 62 . , 481,367 1,409,960 1~4,ij37,221 73,ssa,301 . 1~420,065 157.546,208 71,567,868 1,725,344 148,110,263 74,933,010 " 1,961~177 133,424,919 ' 67,818,917 1,89 . 2, .. 550 ' . . ' . . ' . SOURCE: B a . sed upon '4a~a frqm . the revenue books of 19 Tampa ,. . ' . factories, 193~ . . . . . ' .. ........ . _. TABLE 64 . ' . , . . . . . . ' . . ,. . . . ' . . . PERCENTAGE . OF TAX-PAID WITHDRAWAIS O F c :tGARS FOR OONSUMPI'ION BY CLASSF.S 19 TAMPA FACTORIF,S . . . 1938 . 1937 A l . .........s . 43. 8% .. . . 40 . 6 1 45.1 . . B's 57'1% 6.6 . 3 . 2 1926-1938 C . ' s 41.1% . . . 43 . 0 . .. 41. 0 . 1936 1935 1934 1933 44 7 40.5 41.l : 2.5 , 41~6 : 1932 1931 1930 . 1929 1928 1927 1926 . 35.5 23.7 22.2 . 20~7 16.2 11.7 . 9 4 . .. 2.0 .. l.6 . 1. 7 . ~.1 1.9 ' 1.6 . 2 0 . .. . 2.4 2 . 4 . . . 45.4 . 44.3 48. 7 . 54. 3 . 52.0 53.3 56.5 56.6 " . 5'7 . 9 . . . -. . D's . ' . 2% 9 , . s . io.5 11.1 11 . 9 12.8 . 13. g 19.6 23.3 23 . 9 25.7 28.6 29.4 \ . . . . . E s .1% .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .s .5 .6 ' '7 ;s SOURCE: Based upon da. ta f'ron,. the reven\le books of 19 Tampa . . .factories, 1939 . _' . .. TABLE 65 . . TAX.;PAID . WITHDRAWAL OF CIGARS . BY CLASSES . OF 19 TAMPA " FACTORIF.8 FmST . six MONTHS : . .. . Class . : . , 1939 C1 7 ars t l . . 'I, of Tota l W1 th. A . . B C . D . E Tota l . S O URCE: . . . . ' ' . . .. 45,044,784 . 4,958,853 . 35, _ (?47 ,359 . . . dratials . 48.4% : 5.4 ' 37 .6 8.5 .1 7; 966 _ , 842 11s;so2 .. 90, 13 ' 6 , 64(? 100.6% ' . . . Statements of 19 Tampa Factorie~, July 1939. ,J : ' . . . \ . I

PAGE 155

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . ., I . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . , I . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . TABLE . 55 . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . , . , . . . .. . ' .. . . t . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Year . . .. . . . . . ' WITHDRAWALS OF . CIGARS FOR CONSUMPTION . BY CLASSES FROM . _ ~ . . . . CLEAR HAVANA . FACTORIES OF T.AMPA . . . . / _ . . . ~ . . . . 6 TAMPA FACTORIF.S . . . ~ ' . .. . ....... . . ' . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . 1926-1 938 . . . . . ... " c;') .. .. . . . .. 'â€¢ . . ~ .. . . . Total .. CJ.ass . . . Clas~ . . ~ Ciasa . Class ,. . Class .. . . . . . . . I A . . . . . .. . B . . . . . . C . . ... . . D . ,â€¢ . . . E : . . : . . . 19~~ :_ 84,4 . 98;3s1 ,. 43,~231e~ _ 2,1 . 14~068 . 29,M9 . ;5oi . . -, ' 9,e9 . ~,0io . . e4,o . 54 . :. 19-37 . 88,543,203 . : 42 ;720 , Sly . . . . 1 : , 6 . 6~ ,.~7 : 4 _ . 3~, 17'7 ,025 . . 10 ,880 , 094 . . 96,207 _ . . +936 .97, 43() . , g 90 . . 5~ , , 389, 764 _ . 789,646 . . . . 30,830 , 159 .. . 12 ;313 ,041 . . 108, 380 . 1'93 . 5 . 67,741. '?97 33 as~ .2~1 . .. 5 35, 44l : : ': .23,508,273 -. . 9, 7~0 , ~ 784 . . . . :-, a7, 048 ~ . 1934 . 69 , . 276 ,~47 . . . 31 , 647,593 . 4~6 ,531 . -~25,541,504 : . . . 11;, 485 , ~09 . . . _. . 116 , 110 . . . 1933 6~,7ql,~96 33,1'28,532 . 313; ~61 . ~4,595,648 .11,551,855 . : .. 112,100 _ . . . . _ 1932 .: 69,108,'1~i . .. , . 633,108 . 393 . ,661 .. 25,202,180 1~; _ 713 ,059 . , 190,1~3 .. ; . : . . .i93 _ 1 70, 88'7 ,892 16,947, 6 . 41 . . .... 325,963 .. 30, 301,08922, , 310 : .. . 327 ,889 .. . 1930 es, 170 , . 190 7 .901, . 383 3e1, 932 ~!3 ,07 7, 77 4 30, 24s, 911 . 50 3, 190 . . . 1929 77,'1 60 . ,525 . 6,760,177 3~4, 575 . : 30,305;816 39,512,489 . . _ 857 ,468 1920 73~129,8 47 _. 5 ,20~ . ,175 . 350,973 ~a _ ,834 . ;309 .. 3~,297,67~ . 1; _ 043,719 ~ . 1927 . 73,,749,404 :. 5,62 _ 2~sos 233,902 . 20,a9 . o,29 . 5 37,847,433 . 1, 15 ~ 1 1~ -. 1926 , 62,177 , 2?'7 . : ~ ,241,351 . .' . . 15 6,55~ . . : . ~~,'7 . 36;4l:â€¢ 30,9 _ 19,~05 _ . :. . . _: _ 1 _ ~123, . 656 . . . . soURCE : . Revenu~ data, 6 T . empa plants, ;t939 , . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ' . . . .. . . . . . . > . . : . . . . . , . . . ' . . . . : . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. : . . . . . .

PAGE 156

. . .. . . . . ' . . Year 1938 193'7 193 " 6 1935 ' l.934 1933 1932 ' 1931 " 1930 . . 1929 1 9 . 28 192'7 1926 ' Total .. -65,044.,794 . . . 70 .,055 _ ,0 55 . 58., s sa., 945 54, . 389 ,382 55 ., 049, '7 66 51 . , '732,590 .. : 59, 796,561 62.,~16.,7171 5'7 ., 184, 17~ . 5'7, 9'73., 36 _ 8 . 55, 1~ 6 ,Oll , . 52., 88 ~,001 52 , 930,300 . . . . .. . . . . , ' . . TABLE 67 : ' . . . . . . . . . ' . ' .. w ITHDRAWALS OF : CIGARS F OR C"ON SUMPTION BY " CLASSES FROM CLEAR A?ID SHADE FACTORIES OF TAMPA . . . ' . Class . A 38 ,: . 120, l~2 ~6, 23.9 .,0 . 20 31 . , 792,2 7 9 33 ,09'7 ,194 ' 31,859,599 29,190, 6 96 31, 9 36, '768 22,234,189 1'7,3551861 15 , 827 , '738 ' . 14,444,147 . ' , 12 ; 644,234 11,568., 2 03 . . 8 TA L~ PA FACT . CRIES . . . . . Class . :e . . 5 ~sa2;163 9 .,269 , . 903 . 4, 22 8 ,753 . 2 511 11'7 , . , 1, 7~9 .,102 909,096 1,435,643 2,946,?95 2,046,376 2 -257 6 40 " , ., 2,710,005 3,2 7 5, 9 26 3,3 8 3,185 1926-1938 .. . . . . . Class . . . C .. ____,___ ' . 17,299,161 19; 984 .,897 18, 56 . 6 , 427 1,p, '7 41 . , 993 17 ,8 28,285 1 7,938,338 . 2 2,5 7 9 .,26 . '7 28 ,321,011 27,457,747 29,900,478 27,797;297 25,.43~.,46:3 27,333,72~ . . Class D : 3 ,591.,144 4,305.,502 3, 8 75, 8 62 . 3 .,021 ,655 . 3., 445 ., 995 . 3 ,5 _ 4~ ,375 3,~51,763 B ; 68 6 ,4 8 _ 5 , I 9,.176, 8 89 'â€¢. 9 452 190 . , 9 ., . 564.,337 10., 7 46 . , 86 9 . 9 , 89 2 ,34 5 . . . SOURCE: Revenue data., 8 Tampa plan t s., 1939. '. , . I . ' . Class E . . . . 152,1~4 255,135 195.,6~4 107 .,423 127 .,805 l88,1?5 193.,120 32 8 ,291 547 . .,3Q3 .. 535 ,322 610 ~225 . '78 ~ ~509 _ 75 . 2 ., 844 . . ' . . I . 'â€¢ . ; ' ' . ...., OI . . ' . . . . . . . . . . '. ' . . .

PAGE 157

. .. . . . , . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y~s . r . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' .. I I . . . . . . . . TABLE se . . . . . . . . . . . WITHDRAWAIS OF CIGARS F OR CONSUMPTION . B Y cLASSES . . . . . . FACTORIES . OF TAMPA .. .. . 5 TAMPA FAC . TORIES ' ' . . . . . Class . -~ . . .. . . . . . . Class . ' .. . B 1926-1938 . . ... . . . . Clas s . ' . C . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . FR0 11 SHADE CI 3 AR c1aas . 12 . . . . . . . . . . ( . â€¢' . . . . . . . . Class I . . . . . . . .. . . .., ' . .. . . I . . . . . . .. . , . . . . ti1 . ~ .. . . . ....... :;") . . . . ' . :a.. . . . . . . . . . . . ' ...... . . . . . ' . . . . ~" . "" . .4 _ 1,993,~15 .. :6,439,518 . . _ ._.' . l,?75 . .. _ .. ' . . .: ~ .. . . . . . . 1Q38 . 1 9 3'7 ' . . . . 1936 1935 1934 1933. . 1932 1931 1 9 30 1929 1929 1927 1926 . .. _ 6 : 6 . , . 0~8,581 ' . ,, . 13,215,7 ' 63 . 4 , ~'7. , 8, _ 110 .. 69)898 ,488 , . 13,737 ;234 : 4,940., , 220 . .. . 65 1 200,906 . . .. 14,li6,533 . -. : 2 . ,115 .,98Q ... : ~4 ,~~5,518 -_ . , '7,121,466 . . .â€¢ . 4,050 : . 41;062,100 7 ~905,63~ . .-.6so . , . ... 35,614, , 271 . _: .. 7, 101,-136 .. : .. : .... .. 125 " .. . _. 57 ;97~,686 _. . . 1~;655 ,814 . ~,5~1~340 .. 65, , 1~3, . ~4 . . 1;3,217 ,624 . . +,Qg1,30 3 . ; . 42;677,26 _ 2 ., . 7,646,645 . 400 39,?~3 . ;189 8 . ,6~, 38Q ... : . _ l ,075 6~039,962 \ . 13 . , : 9~4,544 . .. 1 ,-666,769 : . 101; 764,2;1.l . . ~2,209 ,35 5 . . _ 2,130 ,099 121,249 . ,947 _ . 21-,218,6~6 2, lp2 ,9 25 .. . . l.45 '~149;.41 2 _'. . ~4 ~049,843 2,20~,28~ ... 172,8~~,519 _ ..... 41,229,4~? .. 2,3'70;2?0 1 49, 837 j 756 .. . 21 , 670, 926 '' . ' 2 484 . 968 l-35 ,560 , . 828 12 ,-622, 105 . 2, 1790 ,q . 10 1 . 15,l'79i236 .. . 5,?62,512 2,938,-625 .: . . . .. ' . . . . . , . f ' ' . ~4, . ~7 ,. . 130 . . 13,112, . 352 .. 5,27~ 79; 68 . 8, 781 '. . . 1a, 171,581 . 8 ,o~ 85 , 819 ,859 . . . 23,05 8 , 567 . . 11,860 : 104,330 ;9~7 .. 2-4,887 ,622 , 27 ,2'75 : . 100,91~ . ,602 .. 24,695,860 : 71,400 ~3, 78 6 ,50~ . . 26, ~38, 708 _ 23 _,500 80 ;354,782 27,007 ,2~7 .. _ ~6,050 . . . _. .. . . ' . . . SOURCE . : . .. Re v:enue data, . 5 Tampa plants, _ 1939. . + . ..... -...._:.. . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . I . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .~' . . . . ---~ . .:,; , . ~ . . . ::it, . . â€¢, . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ~ . ... .. . . . . . . . , ~ :.. .. ~ . ... . ...... . t:::, . . , . / _ ,., _.,-:. .

PAGE 158

. . . ' . . . APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . 147 . . . . . . . ' . . . . . TABLE 69 . . .P~CENTAGE . OF 'TO TAL ~ITHDRAWAI.S OF .C : IGARS FOR C . QNSUMPTION BY CLASSF.S FROM CLEAR HAVANA FACTORIES OF TAMPA 6 TAMPt FACTORIES . . 1926-1938 . . ' â€¢' . ' . . . . > . :Class . Class Year Class Class . A . H ,. c . p . . . t 1938 51.04% . ~.so-t . di_ 11.71,, . 34. 65 , o . 19 37 . . 4a.24 1.89 37 . 47 12.29 : .Bl 31 . 64 l~.64 : 1936 54.80 1936 49.98 79 . .. .. 34. 70 . 14.39 , . 1934 ' . 45 . 68 .70 36.87 1s.5e . . . 1933 . . 47 .-53 .45 35.29 16.57 , 1932 . 39.98 .53 , . . 36.47 22.74 ' 1931 23.91 . 46 -. , 42 . 75 .. 3 : 2.42 . ' ' 1930 " . 12.25 .. 56 40;0 . l . 46.41 ' 1929 8. 69 . 43 38 .97 50.8]. . . . . . . 1928 e. 41 .48 39;11 50.58 . . . . 1927 7.62 . . 32 . 39..17 . 5 1 . 32 . . 1926 . 6.82 .25 . 41.39 . . 49. 7 . 3 . . . SOURCE: Revenue data, 6 Tamp~ plants., 1939 . . . . .. . . . . . T@LE . 70 . . Class . E I ' . .10',t .11 .11 . .14 .17 .16 .28 .. 46 ' . ' . 77 . . . 1.10 . 1.4~ . . 1.57 . . 1. 8 1 . . . . . PERCENTAGE OF TOT AL WITHDRAWA!.S ,: OF CIGARS FOR CONSUMPTION BY CLASSES FROlwl CLEAR HAVANA AND SHADB FACTORIES QF . TAKPA . 8 TAMPA FACTORIES . . . . . . . . . . 1926-1938 . . . Year 1939 . , 1937 193 . 6 1935 . . 193 . 4 .. 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 . 1928 1927 1926 It C las s : Clas . a . C la s s . . . A C . 58 . 6 1~ 9.04 ~ . 26.60% . . 51. 7 3 ' . . 13 23 . . . 28 53 54.20 _ 7 .21 . . 31.65 \ 60 68 4 6 2 28 9 . 4 ' 57 .8? 3.25 32.39 . . 56.34 . 1.76 . :: 34.68 53. 41 . . . 2. 40 .. 37. 76 . 35.57 4 .71 45.30 30.35 4 .63 . . 48.-01 27 . 30 3,89 . s1 .sa 26.20 4.92 50.4 i 2 . 23. 91 6 7 19 48 . og 21. 86 .6--39 . . 51.64 .. Class D _ 5.52% 6.15 s . 51 5 56 6.26 6.86 ' _ 6.11 13.89 16.05 .. 16.30 / 17 .35 . 20.~2 10 . 69 ' . SOURCE: Reven i.l e I

PAGE 159

' . . . . ' . . , . . . 148 . . . ' . . ' . . . . r . . . ' . . . . . ' . ', . . . . . ' . . . . . . : . .. ' . . . . .. .. . . . . rHi c,GAB 1Nousrilt o, . rAMPA, FLORIDA : . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . fABLB 71 . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . : . . ' . . . . . . . .... ' PER C ENTA G E OF TOTAL WITHDRA1'AI.S OF . CIGARS BY CIASSBS .â€¢ . . FROM SHADE FAC1'0RIBS . OF . TAMPA .. : . . . .. . l . . . . . . 5 TAMPA . FACTOR!&, . .. : . . . , ' .. . . ,. . ' . . 1926~1938 .. . ' . . \ . . . . .. Year . -Class A Class . Class . . Class Class : D B . . . . B . . . . . . _.....,_ . : c . . . . . 9. ?5~ .003~ . 1938 20 . 0~ . 6.63~ 63..~~ . . 10.19 .006 . . . 1937 ,. 19 .65 . 5.'18 . . . 64.37 . . , 21~65 . . . 1936 ' 3 . 25 . 62.97 ' 12 .13 .001 . . 1935 . ' . 23 . 56 2 . 62 . 61~43 12.39 . .0002 . . .0006 1934 ' 20.30 2. 44 6 ' 5 .52 11.7 . . 2~60 . J.933 . 21.86 : 62.04 13 . 50 .002 . . . 1932 21 .82 2 .o~ . 63.19 . . 12.89 . 01 1931 17 .so . 6b~72 . . . . . 1 . 79 14 . 99 . 01 . . , 23.4 " 6 . 1930 . l.52 59.12 15.f\9 . . 01 , 1929 23.85 1.37 60.36 14.40 .02 . . . . .. \ 1928 14.46 1.sa . 67 , ,~5 1e .4a . ~05 . . . 2 : os . 1927 . 9.31 69 .18 . 19.43 .02 . . . . 1926 5.oo . 1.78 . 69.76 23.45 .013 . . .. . . . . . ' . . . .. .. . ' . ' . ' SOURCE: . Rev~~ u ~ data, 5 't'a11ipfl plants, 1939 . . . ' . . . ' . â€¢' . . . . . . . .. . TABLE 72 . . f ~cEHTAGE B~ cussES . oF : TOTAL w1tt1DRAWArs OF CI G ARS FOR c oNSUJIPTION . FROM THREB -GROUPS OF TAJIPA CIGAR PLANTS . MANU FACTURIN G cLEAR . HA~ANA, HAVANA AND SHADE, . . . . . , AND SHADB,l.926-1938 . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . C . le~r Ha v ana ( l) . . Clear 1Iavana ant . :, ... . . Shade . ( ) . . Factories . . Shade Fact or 1es 2 ) . . Factori ' ea 3 : . . . Total 39 .2' 31.~ . 36.$. .24. . .BJ . .. . , . .. Cle.as A 45 .6 . . Class B 1'7. 1 ' 35~6 40.4 . 9. 7 . 47 .s . . . . 14 . .. 0 . 35.4 . Class C 33.l 23.9 . . 19.5 . . 37 .1 5 2.2 19~6 49.6 . . ~1a.o -. . 14.7 , -4'r .4 . 32. 3 : , 54 . 0 ' . â€¢, 63.9 .. 44 . 4 .: . \ . . . . . . . . Class D . 49. 7 . . Class E 35. 3 . . o.e . . I t I . SOURCE : Revenue boo~s . , _: 19 TaiQpa cet11panie ~, 1939. . : , ( 1) . S ix Ta1,,pa c igal" fa~tories â€¢~nufacturing oldy clear Havana . Ci J al'S . . . -' . . ' . . . . . . . . 1 (2) E1 c; ht . Tanrpa ci g~ r fact or1es manfacturi ng both c lear Hayai;la . ci : .. ars and shade cigars . , . . . . . . . (3r Five Te1,1pa ci g ar factories manufaet~i ng only shade c3 gars. . ( 4 ) Computed rr om total withdr,..wals of ci g ars fl'om 1926 ~hr ough l 1938 . . . ,. . . . I . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . PAGE 160 Month . . . . . . January February l.1a.rch ' April . May June . July .. Au.suet Sep . tem b er Oct obe r . . November December Totals Av . era g e . . . Total . . . . . ~,274,934 13, 7 36 , 310 17,960,998 1 6 ,731,135 1 8 ,691,006 20,454, 98 . 8 16,117,0~5 16 , 112, 133 . 16,809,076 . 20,687 . 1742 ' 27,938,869 14 056 631 207 ,57 ' , 89 . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . TABLE 73 SEAS01' T AL INDEX OF )V~THDRAWAIS OF CIGARS ~OR CONSUMPTION OF .. 17 COMPANIES . IN TAMPA 1938 .. . . . . . SeaClass Index . Class Index aonal . A . .. . E .. Index . 5 & 5 . 1~~ â€¢' . ' . 48 79 104 97 109 118 9 . 3 93 .. 97 ' 120 162 81 . 100 . 4,431,043 57 . 545,9.6 . 6 ; 774,859 8 7 912,055 . 8, 601, . 87-7 111 1, 03 _ 2, 494 7, 899 ,422 . 102 1,1 8 3,603 8, 8 15,7 . 1~ 113 1,14 5; 3 55 9,114,32 6 117 . ;I. , 1 : 14, 630 7,500,080 96 8 1 , 6 21 .. 7 , 8 27 ,055 1,00 6 ,.916 _ 8, 1~7 : , 03 . 3 105 . 91 8 ,150 . ' 8 ,492,4 66 . 109 1,031, 8 29 10,142, ~ 03 . 130 1,4 8'7 , 666 5 soz 24 e 2 . 1 10 5 s25 93,3 8 j 25 1 . , 302,7~1 . . 1 00 53 8 9 101 11 5 . 112 109 6 0 98 90 101 . 14 5 108 108 . . . . . . I . Class : . C Index Class D 8 1-15 . . . . is . i-20 I . 2, 8 21, . 128 40 5,215,907 74 7 036 ' 127 100 . . 4 66 ,39? 822, 6 ~9 1 . , 2 . 7 e, 190 , . , . 6,318,795 9 0 _ 1,317,135 7,2 6 2, 708 ' 1=,03 l , 45 C , 225 _ 8,266 ,51 5 11'7 _ 1,942,697 6 , . 5~ 4,09 8 ' 9 3 1~24 _ 9,817 . . 5, E 84 ,3 8 1 . 8 4 1~3 ~8 ,161 6 ,4 49 , 98 0 92 1,2 58 ,133 . 9,209 ,740 . 131 1, ~3 2, 532 13,~57,749 193 . ~,702,9 8 1 5 SOl 649 8 4 1 414 334 8 4, 4 , l ~ 2 9,231 . 108 . . . . SOURCE: .; F~ctocy reven-qe bo _ oks or 17 Tamp a plants, 1 9~9. . .. . . ' . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . Index . 33 57 e9 9.2 102 135 . 87 96 8 8 135 . 18 8 99 ' . Class Ind:ex E . Over 20 . . . . . ' . 10,428 . 57 10 ,86 59 14,280 77 . 12,189 . 66 9 ;005 . 49 1.6 , 920 .. 91 14 , . 4'7 . 9 79 15,620 85 15,780 . 8 6 . . 21,175 115 . 47 . . , 670 259 . : __ . 32 87 4 . .. 178 --------------22 ~, 16 . . ' . 100 .. 100 . . . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . PAGE 161 . . .. . 150 : . . ' . â€¢' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' THE . CIGAR INDU.STRY OF TAIPA, FLORID.A. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . I I . . . . . . . . .. r ' . . . , . . TABLE 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ' . . . . . . . VARIETY OF . BRANDS BY ex.ASSES OF 19 TJJIP4 CO . IIPANIFS . .. : C1ass I I B ' . . c . n E Total 1939 . . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . \ . . . . . . . Number of Branda , . rs? . . ' . 82 286 J.90 . 111 ( . aas 1 > . .. . . . , SOURCE: . Price 11s ts of . 19 Te11ipa . companies . 1939 ' (l) Private and Club brands and small cigars no~ . . included. . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . TABLE "75 . . ~. COMPOSITE ~CE SB kWr . . . 18 . TAMPA CIGAB COIIP.A}iJ ES ( 1) . . .. 1926-1938 . . . . . . . . . Year Total . Current Ai,seta Ao s o t a . Accounts . e ceiv 19 39$15 . , 385,492 $9 45 8 35 4 1937 15,894,724 . 9,182,160 1936 15,660; 761 9 ,010 . ,068 1935 15, 304 . , ~]. 7 9,634, 1 . 4 ' 0 . 2,020,930 . 2 , 135,364 2,1~4,680 .. 1 . ~8~9,638 ' .1934 15,77~ ,761 . 10,000,228 1933 . 16,904,216 _ io,468 _ , s07 . . ; , 7QO 4~2 . 1, 624,610 . 1932 1s,r96,475 . 10,905,s~1 . 1931 17 ,468,fll6 _. . 1 . 1~502 ;579 1930 ;18,203 . ,499 ' . . 11,331,353 I 1929 17, ?88 , 17 , 4 1~ , .. 695, 564 :: l',901,564 " . . . . . .. . . Fixed 5 , . 927 , , 13 8 6, 712,563 5,850,6 92 5 : , 6~0 1 27 6 ~,776,-533 6 435 32 9 . . I I . . 5 , 81() , . 884 l92e 16,920, 7 76 .... 10~ 758,461 ... : .. 1927 . 15 ,~54, 130 9,495 ~501 192s 12,100,701 '1,984,57â€¢ ... .. 2,352,5~1 . 2,595 , . 105 . 2, 820 . , . 183 .. 2,698,591 2, 6 15 . , 130 . 2,429,092 . . . 5,965,80 7 ' f? . , 872,14 6 5,932,610 6;162~315 5,958,62 9 . 4 ,802 , , 1 27 .. . . . . . . . . . . . t Year Total . _, Current A ccount . a .. . . . __ _ LiabiJ i ties b 11 ties . Payable . 1938$ 1,842 _ ~292 . 1~ 565 ,061 . t 526 . ,4l0 .. 1937 , 2,200,627 1, . 91~ ,286 522,697 .. 1936 1,610~80~ l ,2 52,665 471~~ 69 19~5 .. 1,352,527 1,052,508 . 434,022 . Fixed . Net Liabi ties Worth $277 , 231 . . 13 , 334, 386 . 287 , 341 13,482, 692 . 358, 138 13 : , 792, 1 58 300,019 . 13,757 , 135 371,506 14,173,04 7 362, 775 14,4~7 ,1 54 ~62 .079 _ 15,247,499 1934 . .' 1,420,890 1,049,384 . . 453,642 ', . . 19 . 33 . 1; 2~7, 175 934,400 . 443 ,8 92 . . . 1932 1)410,Q4~ . 1,047,967 .. 35$~6i3 . . . . . . . ' 1931 1,6;7 ,56 _ 6 1,1 9s,0s2 ~~o : ,4 , li 1930 2 ,s 3.3, 503 2 ,061 , 2o s . ._ . 60~ ~ 07~ 1929 . 2,827, 9 . 01 2; 463 ~38~ . : 659 ' ,514 . 1928 . 3,222,729 .. 2 ,851 703 . . " 891.254 1 9 27 -. 3, 126 . , 63 8 . 2, 7 . 57, 638 .. g s a , 127 1926 2 . ,069, 104 . 1 . , 725,104 . . _ 661; 649 . . . 480~ 703 .. 15,780, ~50 .' 4~,297 . 15,765 _ , 606 364,515 ' . 14,755,1 60 371,027 , 13 , , 7.J. 8 , 7 42 359 ,ooo 12,257 ' , _ 729 334,000 lOj, 70~,0 74 . . . . . . $0URCE : Audit . repQr . ts ' am . company : records of _ 18 . Tampa . cigar compa n ies 1939. . . . . : ' . . . . . { 1) One company of the 19 !!'am.pa ci ga. r companies i nves t i g a ted, did not h ave complete bala:nce sheet recor d s. . . ' . . . . . . ' . . . ' ' . . . ., . . . ' .. . PAGE 162 . . Year 1938 . 1937 . ~: 1935 1936 1934 . . 1933 1932 .. . . . .. . . C.u.rrent Ass ets to Ourre;nt . Liabilities 6 04 : . 4.80 . 7 .B . 3 . ' 9.15 1931 . 9.53 11 . 20 10.48 9.6 1 1 9 30 .. 192 . 9 1928 1927 1926 5 50 4~73 . 3 . 77 3.43 4:.63 , .. ' . . Current . ,4ssets to Total Asse . ts & . . .61 " .58 .63 .63 63 .66 . 66 s6 .62 .66 .64 . 61 .62 . , I TA P LE 76 . . . . RATIOS OF BALANCE SHE!S!T FIGURES . .. 18 TAMPA CIGAR COMPAN l 8:S . 1926-1938 Fixed . . Asseta . to Total . Assets 39 .. . 42 .37 . . .37 .37 . .40 . 36 . 34 .38 3 4 . .36 .39 . 38 . . . . . . Current L1ab . il1 ties to . Total Liabilities 55 . . . . 87 . .78 .78 . 74 72 , .,4 . 71 .Bl . 8 7 . 8 8 . 8 9 . . 8 4 . . ;, a . . . . Fixed Liabilities . to Total Liabilities .15 .13 .22 .22 .26 . . .. 2a .26 : .29 . 19 .13 . . J . 2 .J . l . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . Net Worth Net Worth to Tot a1 . . to Current . Assets Liabilities .87 .86 . ' .88 .90 ~90 86 . . . .91 . 90 .87 .84 .81 .79 . 84 . . 8. 5 . 2 . '7.05 11.01 13.07 13.51 15.48 : . . . 14. 55 ' . . . . 13.18 7. 65 .. . 5 . 99 4.81 4 .43 . s.20 . . . SOURCE: Audit reports and company records of 18 Tampa ci g ~~ companies, . 1939. .. . .. I . . . Net worth to Total. . Liabilit 1es . . .. ------7 .24 . . 6.13 . 8.56 ' 10.17 9.97 11.15 l.0.81 . 9.41 6.22 . 5 . 22 4.26 3. 9 . 2 s.20 . . . . . . . . ... . ' . . . . . . . . . I . . . PAGE 163 . . . . . 152 . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . ' . ' . . . . . ' , . ' . . . . . rBE CIGAR INDUSTllY OF TJIP.A. , FLORID.A. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . .. . . . ... .. . . . TABLE 7 '1 . . . _. . 1 . Year 1938$ . 1937 . . 1936 . . EARN ~ N~ Olt . INVESTRD CAFI'J!AL .. .â€¢ 16 TAMPA COJIPAlf . 1 M ( lJ . . . . . 1926 ~ 19 . 38 .. ': . . . ' . . . lfet Worth Net Profit , ' . . . . . . . . . . . I . . 6 ,.73 13,16f,881 . 168,35 ' 9 . 13,309;837 . , 345,907 13,e21,010 . . . .. . . . . ' ' Percent Profit . .o5i 1.26 2 54 . . . . 1~35 . 256,124 ).3 ,587 ,996 1.88 . ' . . . . . 1934 29 . 1~7 89 1933 175, 824 . : 1932 532 ,139 . . 1931( . ) . 1,143~413 .. . . . 1930 2 1,298~164 1929(2) 1 . , 765 ,02â€¢ ; . i928 ( 2) ~,137 ,895 . 1927(2) . . . : 1, 9~8; 903 1926 ( . 2-) . 1,3 93, 7Q5 . ' . . . : i3, 993 . , g21 14,293,336 15,07~;178 15,633,966 . . . 15 . ,319 ,665 14, ' 283 . ,890 13, 228 , 382 . . 11,901;6'76 10,317 ;425 . . ' 1.44 1.23 â€¢, 3.53 , ? .31 . 8.47 12.36 , ' 16.16 . 16.80 . 13.5 . 1 'â€¢ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . s oURCE: . â€¢udi t . reports and ca111pa~ . records of 16 Tan.pa caâ€¢â€¢panies, . , 19 ' 3 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) Of the 19 Tampa plants investigated, 3 ._ made all sales throu gh sel 11ng companies, hence did nqt have data o~ . net prof'i t. . . . ( : 2) Includes only 14 .c ompanles recol'Q.S f or ; 2 qf the other Com p a nie for these year~ wer~ not av~ilable. . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . .. . . t . I . . . . . . : TABI.8 78 . . . . . .. . â€¢. . . . . coMP OSITE PROFIT AND wss STA'i'EMENT(l : ) ' . . 14 TAMPA COIIPAlll-&S . . ' . . . . 1926-19 ' 38 . : : . . .. . . .. ' . . : . ' ' . . . . Year Net Sales Cost . o f . Sales . 5el l 1rig . General And . .. Net . E~~u1se Adin 1 ~ense Prc:it'i t 1 $11,492,378 .$9 ,396 ' ,552 . $1, 51,138 . .$ 86~ J5 $: 11,.37 _ 7 1 9 37 12,05 4, ' 52~ .. 9,65 3,679 J.,141,337 1,017,5~1 170 . .937 \ 1936 .. 11,280,374 .S,812~ _ 655 1,1~ 1 487 _. .. 8 . 93,7 : 03 . 34~, 8 8 4 1935 9,-661 _ , . 614 . 7,771,329 1,005,06'7 . 871, , 977 ~73,4 45 1934 10, . 003,956 8 ,0 52 ;077 . 995,297 817,642 ~12,7 5 8 . 1933 . 9,954 ,840 . 8,025,238 .97Q~~7 875,091 . 198, 7 1 9 . 19 . 32 13,933,754 . 11, : 1~3,650 1,10~~~40 'â€¢ 905.541 .. 528,7 33 : 1931 l~ ,513,287 1 _ 4 ,76~ 1 476 1,397,978 _ l,Ol~,l:55 1-,.141,? 5 0 .. 1930 . ) 20,459, 72& 16 1 624,475 1 1 43~ 1 823 1,021,977 1 1 298,1 6 4 . . 1929~:) 23,109,639 18, 6 8 ,6,~8 . . . 1,533,882 . _. 1,034;,0~8 1,715,0 2 4 . 1Q28 ) 21,994,171 17 _ ,299 ,649 . 1,302 ,093 . 1,PSS,305 2,092,895 . 192,;( ~ 211303,360 . _ 16,956,182 l;.285,338 _ . 1,021,100 . 1,958~903 . 1926( . ) _ 19 1 012,~44 14,518,610 . ~ 1 065,280 .. 1 1 02., . 256 . l,.363 1 70 5 . " . ' . ' ' . ' . . . . . . . . . . SOURCE: Ba~ed -qpon dai;;a ta~e~ froâ€¢ the audit reports and company records . of 1~ . Ta1npa c~pa . nies , . l. 939 . . . . . . . . . ... ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ( 1) Sâ€¢ll ~unts represeiit1 1'l8 . otlle;r income anc1 : expe~es are ,iot inc;J.uded 1n th1.s ta:i>Ie, henc . e . t:t:>-e subd1 visi~ns shown wil:'l not equal tn:e net sales. . . . . ( 2) , 15 Tani.pa companie~ -: .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . .. ' . . PAGE 164 . . . . . .. .. . ' . . . . . .. . . . . . APPENDIX . 153 . ' . . . ' . . .. . .. . ' \ . . . ' .._ I , ... . . ' . . . ... .. , I TABLE 79 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ' . . . . . . PERCENTAGE OF :_ NE'I' SAI,ES OF COST OF SAIES, SE~ING EXPEN~E, ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL . EXPENSEl AND NET PROFIT { J . . ( 14 'l1ampa Companies J . . . , Cost of SaJes 81.76% ao.oa 78.12 80.44 so.so . 80.62 79.76 . 79 . 74 . Bl.25 . 80.89 .. 78.66 79.59 76.36 . 1926-1938 Sel . 11ng Adminis . trative 9. 15 9.47 10 . 14 . 10.40 7.56 8.44 .. 7.92 9 .03 . . . . . 9 . 95 9.75 8.49 . 7.55 7 .. 02 6.64 5 _ .92 6.03 5.55 ,. a . 17 a . 79 6. 5 . 0 . p.49 p.00 ; 4. 48 4.94 4.7 . 9 5 39 Net .. o . 1 1.42 . 3.07 ' 2.83 2.13 2.00 . 3. 79 6.17 6.34 7.42 9.52 g .20 7 .17 . SOURCE: Based upori data : tak~n from the audit reports and company records of 14 . Tampa factories, 1939. . (1) Small amounts ~eprescnting . other income and expenses are not inclu~ed in this tabl e, hence the com b ined perc$ntage fig\U'es w111 not equal 100%. . .. . . . . . . . . . (2) 13 Tampa colllp _ ani~a . . . . . . . , , . ' . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' t . . . . . r ' .

PAGE 165

. . . . . . . ', . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . ' . .â€¢ 1. . . . . . : . . .. . â€¢' '. . . . . . . . ' , . . ' . . . . . . .. . . . . ' ., . . ... TAaLE 80 . . . . . . . . . . , . .. . . COST OF. . I,ABOR, 'l'OBACCO AND T~ . . AND . 1'BE!R PERCENTAGB OF COST OF SAI,M 1N 19 TAMPA CIGAR FACTOB 1 88 1930-1938 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ' . ' . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1'0BAOCO . . . . . Year . . Coat or Sales . . . . . . Coa . t .. . ol <>t . . Total : of _._. , o t .. . Tobacco , : , . . Oo~t . ., Taxâ€¢â€¢ . ,_ . .oo at or . . . ... . .. ot _ s,1,1 . . : .~ ., . . .... IIJ.ti . . . . . . . . ... ' 1938 tl0,554,9~'7 t4,S03,'70'7 . 40 . 7'n . . ts,907,13 : 7 . 19 37 10 ,922,64~ :_ 4-;589 , 687 42.02 3 ,255 ,685 1936 . . . 9,679 . ,72' : ., . 247,832 ' . . 43 . 88 . 2,8~8,3()3 .. . 1935 .. .e,804,346 a,'74~, . ~1~ . 42.50 . 2,37~,299 ._ 1934 . 9,096,96~ . 3,887 ,038 42..7~ .. 2,629, 140 1933 9.096,0~6 3,731,888 . = 41 .03 2,571,412 : ' ' . ~"""" --------. . ----------. . ' . . . . . ' 1932 12 ,242;357 4,897 ,56~ 40-. . 00 : 3,877 ,~15 .. 1931 15,a12 ,e9~ .5,e27,0~0 36.85 5,073,173 . 1930 17,649,321 6,875 ,111 . 38.95 5 ;780,19'0 . . Average Percentage ot : Coat ot Salee 4d. S4 t, . ' . . . '~ . , . . ' . ' . . . ' . . . ' ' . . . ' . ' . . ' . . ' . .. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . ' ' .

PAGE 166

. . . .. . . 1938 . 1 9 37 . 1936 . . . Cigars . Manufactured 219,268,768 2~0, 329 , 35J.; 209 ,016,168 18 5, 726,114 I . . â€¢' . . COST OF LABOR; . . . . . . . . C.os t Of . Labor . TABLE 81 . . . . . . . . 1 TOBACC . O . AND TAXF.S PER I CIOARS MANOFA CTURED 19 TAMPA CIGAR FAC ' TORIES 1930-1938 . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ., Cost of Labor Cost per M Cost . of Tobaccb Tobacco Cost per . . T~es " $2 I 907 .137 . 3,255,685 . 2 , 898,303 2,379,299 M .$13 . 26 . 14 .13 13.87 . . 12.81 13.81 I ' t ' 12, 139, 034 . ~ 2,. 419,966 2;130,167 . . . 1, 682 ,837 1, 657, 798 . . . ' . . . . . . Tax Cos t I 9 . 7s 10.51 . . 10.19 1935 1934 1933 190 ,38~, 945 190, 10 , 9 , 794 . $~, 303, 707 4,589,687 _ 4,247 ,632 3,741,913 3,887,038 . . _ 3 , '731,888 .$1 9 . 63 19 . 93 . 20.32 . 20.15 20.42 19.63 ._ ' . . 2 , 6 29 ; 140 2 ,571 . ,411 13.53 16.24 19~86 22.02 .. 1,006 ,oa 5 . .â€¢ : 2 , 27 _ 5 . , 931 . . 9.06 . 8.71 9,50 ' 9 .53 10.9 . 9 11.59 . 1932 ' . 1931 1930 . 238 , 7 p8 , 454 . 255,417,960 2 6 2~516,511 . . . Avera g e cost p er M . 4 , 897 ' , . 563 . 5 , 8 27,818 6 8175 111 , , . 20~51 . . 22 .02 26 . 19 ' $21 ~25 . 3 I 877 I 416 I 5,073,173 . 5 ; 780, 190 _ . . . 2,806,169 . 3,042,355 . . . . . . SOURCE: Audit _ reports, company. records and re~enue books . of 19 . Tampa cigar factories, 1939. ; . . . . . . . . .. ' ' . . .$ 10.07 . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 167

. . ,â€¢ , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . â€¢' .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . , TABLE 82 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . " . . . COST OF TOBACCO AND OUTIP~ AND PEROENTA3E OF . THEIR TOTAL COST : . . 19 TAMPA crOAR : FACTORIF,S . , . . . . ' . . . : . . _ .. 1930-1938 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .. . . . . . :. Year ,. . : . Total Cost o t . . Cost of To ba . cco , .. Tobaco o and Dut 1egt, . . . : . . . .. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1938 . . $3 ,s6o, ).02 _. . . . : . . .. t2, 907 i3'r 1937 . . . 4,4 . 61,379 . . . ~,255, : 685 : . 1936 . . .. .' 3, 982 ,l~ .. : . 2,898 j . 3Q3 . 1~35 3 ,.127 ,37 _ ~ ., 2 , . 379 ,299 . 1934 . . . 3,3oa,.9 . 03 .. .. â€¢. _ 2, s~,140 . 1933 _: . 3 , 394, 22~ . 2, 5~1, . 4 12 i932 ., .4 930 903 . 3,877 ,.15 . 19~1 a:2so:os7 ~,073;173 1930 7 , 091,, ~52 _ _.. ... . 5, 78(), l~O . # . . . . . . . . . . ' . I "... . . . . . . . . . Per Cent of Total .. . . . a ,. . ' . . . . . ' 75.3~ 73.0 7 e.e . .. . 76 .1 . 79 . 6 . 75 .8 . : 70 : e . ' 80.8 81.5 . , 'â€¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . : . soURCE ~ --. AU:<11~ l:'1'p~ rta and ' company reco;ttd~ 0~ 19 . Tampa cigar . f~ct ories, 1 939. ' . . . â€¢, ,,. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . .. . . .. . ' . . .. ... . . . . . . .. . ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iâ€¢ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ""' . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 168 . . ' f Year . ' . C1ga:rs . Manufac ti1r ed ' ' s.... ... . . . . . . . , . . . TABLE 83 . cosT ' . . . OF rro r: .ACCO AND DUTIES pm 1:f . C!G.AR s JiANUFACTUREa> .. . , . Cost of Toba~co and Duties . . . . .$3 I 860 a :ia2 . ' 19 TAMP.A CIGAR FACTOR I.ES ' . . 1930~1938 ' . Cost . : per M of Tobacco and Duties $17.~0 . 19.~7 Cost . ot Tobacco$2,907,137 . 3.255.(;85 . . Cost per M . of Tobacco . . . . $13.26 ' 14 . 13 1938 . 1937 1936 ' l,.935 1934 1933 21~ ,268~768 230,329, 3 _ 51 . . 209 ,01e . , 15a 185,726,114 . 190,386, 9 ~5 190,109 , ,794 . 238 758 454 . 4, 46 . 1,379 . . 3, 9.82, 125 . 19.05 2,898,303 2,379,299 13.87 . 12.81 . ' . . 1932 . . , , 1931 . 25~, 417 , ' 960 . .1930 262 ,516 ,-5+1 . . Ave~age Co~t per M 3,127,373 . 3,302,903 . 3 ,394, 223 4,93_0,903 . 6; 280,067 . 7 ,091,2 52 . . . . . .. SOURCE: Audit report s and . compa~y records . . . . . . . . .. 16.84 . .. 17.35 2 _ ,629 ,140 17.85 2,571#412 20~65 3,f$77,415 13. ' 81 . 13. 53 16.24 24 . 59 _ 5 ,0 1;s , _ 173 . . . 27.01 5 ~ 7 . 80, 190 .. 19.86 . . 22.02 . . . . $20.40 ' . '$15.84 .. . . . .. . . of 19 Tampa .ci g ar eompani _ es, 1939. . . I ' ll , 'ff' ' . . . . . . Cos . t of Duties 9.53,046 1;205,694 1,083 ,823 748 ;074 .. . 673;76~ 822,812 1,053,~7 1,206,8~4 _ l,31;1., .' 062 ' .. ;. . . . Cost pe r . M of . . Du.ties . . . . $4.42 . . 5. 23 ' . . . . . 4.92 " 4 .. 15 . 3 . 56 . : 4.44: 4.57 4.74 . 4 .. ag .. . . . . .. ' . . . . I o . ..... (11 ..;J . . . . . PAGE 169 . . . . . . . . . ,â€¢ . . . . . . . : . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ,. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 84 . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ., . . .. . : â€¢' .. . . ,_ ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERCENTAGE . oF c-crsT01is . DUTUS; _ nT)mNAL :'~.... AMP OTHER TAXB~ 'l'o TOTAL . TAXF.S . FOR . 19 TAMPA CIGAR FACTORIES . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . .. 1930-1938 . . . . ("'S' . . . . . . . . . ..... ~. .c;-s .â€¢ I . . , . . . :... . . . . . . . . . . . .~ :Year custo,râ€¢a Du~i . es . ... : Per 9en t . or . (l,~ C! toms . . lnterna l . Per Cent . . Other Taxe . s . Per Cent Total Taxes :a:, . . Revenue . : : . ot . .. . _.... . . ot. . .. . .. . . Du t 1ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. -------. . . . . Internal .. . .: :. Other . . . .. .. . . . . . ~ . . . . . ... ~. . .. . Reyenue .. ___ . ___,...,.. . _ . . Taxea .. . . . . . . c,; . : . :: : 44 55%$ e9s 444 : :. 4i.~~ . $290 544 . 13 â€¢~9% .$2,13~ ,034 . : . .': : 961 :382 . 39 _ . '!~ _ . 252: 8 90 . . . .. 1q .-45 . . 2,419, 9 ' 66 ., . : . 0 . . 1938 . $. ' .. 953 ,046 . '.. 193'7 . . . 1 . , 205,694 : . 1936 . 1 ~0~3 ~823 1935 . . . 748,074 ' i934 . . . 673,763 1933 . 822,812 1932 li053,487 1931 . 1 , 206, 894 . . 49 . 82 ' . 50.00 . 44 .-45 .. . . .. 40 '. . 64 45.66 . . 46.29 43.01 : 898~138 .: 42 . 16 â€¢' .. .1 _ 48,207 : . . 9.96 . . 2 ;130,167 . . . .. : 11s2 ,og~ 46 . 48 _. 1s2, 663 9.~'7 , : 1 . ;se2.0~7: .. .. . ~ --. 823,348 : 49 . 6'7 . l60, 686 9. 69 . _ 1, (:SQ7, 799 . 824,006 . ' 4~ .62 159 ,267 .. . 8.82 .. 1,806,085 . .. . . . . . . . :.' 1930 1,311 . ,062 . . 4 . 3, 09 1,105,765 . 48.58 : .. 116, . 6'79 . , . 5 . 13 . 2,275 . ~~3l 1, :, 434:; 150 . . . 51 .11 . 165 , 124 . . 5 88 .. . 2,806, 169 1;~86, 261 . . 52.14 . _. .. 145,032 . . . 4 . '77 . 3,042,355 . . . . . . . . . . .. . ' : 46. 65% . 45 .38 'I, . : . . . . . . a.oo % . ' . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , SO~CE: Au~i t repor~s, . r evenue 'h'ooks, and company recor.da or 19 T~a f'act _ or.ie a, 1939 . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' ' I . . . . . . , , . .. . . . ' . ' . . . " . . . .. .. . . . . ' . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . PAGE 170 I . . . .. . . . . . . . APPENDIX . . 159 .. . . . . . . \ . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . t . . . . . . . . TABLE 85 . . . . . . ,â€¢ . . . . . . . . . . . ~OST PER THOUSAND CIGAAS MANUFACTURE:P . OF cuSTOMS DUTIES, . . . INTERN~ u-, AND QTH ER TAXES . . . . Year 1938 1937 : 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 . . FOR 19 TAMPA CI G AR FACTOR . IF:S . . .. . : 19 . 30-1938 . . . . . . + CustoJDIJ Duties . Int ernal Revenue . other Taxes t4.35 . . 5.23 . s.10 4.03 3.54: . 4.33 4.41 ...................... __,. ........... iii,ii,ii,,i,...$4.08 4.17 4 _ .30 . 4.21 4 .32 . 4~33 4.63 . $1.32 '1..10 .71 .82 .84 .a4 . . 49 . . . 4.72 5.61 65 . 5~00 . 6.04 . . .55 ~eighted . Ave~age Cost per M . ..$ 4 .57. . . $.00 . . . .. SOURCE: â€¢udi t . reports. reve nue of 19 Tampa tact or1ee., 1939. . . . books, and c~pany records . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . \ PAGE 171 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . ' . . . . . . . .. On Cigar-a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . : . TABLE 8 ' 6 . . . . ' . . . , . . ~ NTERNAL _ REVENUE TAXES . O N . cr~s _ ACCORDING _ To _ THE . PRINCIPAL . INTERN.At REVENUE ACTS . .. . . . . FROM 1909 to 1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ID'c, ct. ri' CD . . coo tc, tO..., CD~ -= . . . g~rs . e .... ng . no iore . . than ." . 3 lb~ per ltJ .. : sma l.i ~ c_iiiillia-. rja,,,sipllll,,o . __ ....... ...,..,.. ........... 7..,5_ . _ _ . ..... . Cigars . e --:ng more . u _ .i. ~.i. .75 , 3 ." 1bs . per M . . . . . > .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( " Large Ci s ar$) . , 3.00 . . Manuf'actured: or Imported . _ . . "' .. , to r~tail _ at less than 4 . each . Class A . . 3.0Q .. . . . . . . 3.00 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . At not more than . St/, each .. . Class : . : , . . .. . . . , . . 4 00 4 00 4.00 2 00 . . . . .= : . . . A or . more . -t . no iiior~ . . than :/ ea . ch C las s B . . Atmore than 5 each ~t not more than 8 each ... Clasa B At more than eac ut no . mqre than 1~ ~ach-9iass c . .. . At : more th~ a : ea~~ but not . .. more than 15 eaeh~Class C A more t .v eac no . more .. than 20 ch -Class n 1119re CJ.ass E ee:c . . . . . . . . . 3 . 50 . . . . . . . . . 5.50 6. 50 . t I . . . . . . : 4. 00 . E? .00 . . . . . ' . . . . . a .oo . ' . ' . . 6 . 00 . . . . . . .. . .. . . â€¢, , .. . . . .. _ 9 _oo __ ......, __ . __ g_ o_o_ -. _ . ______ . _g~oo ..... ______ .. ___ s oo . . . . . 8 00 , . 12 00 12_ . o_o_ ___ . 1_2 ___ 00 ____ .. ___ 10 ___ . . 10 .o o . . . 16,00 15.00 ]3.50 I ; SOURCE: . The . Economi~ : Deve . lo~men~ of the . cigar In~us try . in th~ u~ ted St~ te a . . ~~1i111 B . B~e~ . ' . _ :_ page 233 . , J,ancaa ~er, Pennsylvania, 1933. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ' . . . , . . . , . . : . . . . . . . . . . . , .. . . . . . . . . . .. : . . . . :ti . ?1 ' .. . . . . . . â€¢. . . . . . ... . . ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE 172

. . . . . . . ' . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . . . ' .. . . . . . . . ' . . . ' APPSND I X . ' . ' ' . . . . . . TABLE 87 . . . . TAX B REAKDOWN OF A TY: P!CAL .T AM.PA FAG . T ORY S H OW I N G . . .. SPECIFIC TAXES AS PERCE N TA G ES oF COST O F SAT.ES . . . 1933 . . . ' . . .. : 161 .. . . . . . ' . P~ rcent of Cos t or Sales .. . . co . st . qf Sa . lee . Taxes ( 1 ) . . ' . . ' . . , Feder al . ' . . . . ' . . . . . : $569, 7 0 8 .4 8 . ~2 2 , 4 77 .17 ' . . ' Pr oc ~s . sing Tax . .$ l., 796,30 , Fed e ral Capital Stock Tax 40,0 .oo I . F edel'.'al Check Tax .. . 11 1 64 I TQtal . . . Dut , y . . R e ve nue .. . . ' . . Total . o . f all Federal ... Lo ~ al . . . , . S t ate Capi tal Stool[ . Tax _ . s t a te FI-anehiae . 50.00 10.00 .. 75,. 25 . . ' . . : 2 I 207 94 64 259 . 7 9 , . ' ' . . 55 ,629 . ,38 $1~2 09 1 1. 11 . . , ' .. .. . ' . . Local occupation . 147.Bi -. . .. . . . S t ate _ ._ Personal Property . . City p ere onal , Property 95.00 : 'f . Franchise . . Total of s . tilte and local .... . . 2.00 . . . . .$ . 380. 06 . . . . 2 1.5% . . . .4 11.2 9.8 21~4~ . . . . , . . . . . . s ou:RCE: Records of a Tampa . plant, 1~39. . ( 1) . _ Income t-ax not included . . .. .. lii . . . ' . . 'l'ABLB 88 . . . . . . . . . . . TAX BREA.IDOWlf O . F A TYPICAL TAMPA FACTORY . SH OW :( N , G SPECIFIC TAXES . AS PERce:BTAGES OF COST O F SALES . . . . . . 1938 , . ' . Per cent of . . . . . ' . . :,. . . : cost o f Salea : Cost Ql Sw.les _ . Taxes' ) . . . . . . . $6~9,842~0~ . . . : 181 ~ 8J. 7 ~06 . 28 .9% .. Pederal . . Federal Capital Stock Tax . .. Un~p~oya,ie~t Insurance . Social S~curity . Total . .. . ' Dut ' . . . 7 . . Revenue . . .. . .. . Total . or all Federal . . Local . . . Stat . ~ . Capitai St ook Tax . '7. 50.00 . . . . . . Un~ploJ,nent Insura~oe _ . 6 .ss2.sa State and County Misce-llan: . . ' . eoua .' . . 1, 737 . 91 . City Misce ilaneous _.. 1 1 -439.94 . TQt a1 . o r state and iocal -~ . ' ~ t 10, 5 10.43 . . . . . .. ' ' SOURCE: . Reco~a ot . a ' . plant " , 1~39. . . . (1) _. I _ ncome t~ not included. . . . . . . . .. . . . ' . ' . .. , . -.. . .. . .. ' ' . . . . . . . .. .. ' â€¢. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . .9 19~8 . 6.5 . 27.2,( . . I . 7 . . PAGE 173 ' . . ' .. . ' . 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . :.. THE CIGA . R 1 NDUSTR . Y OF TAâ€¢PA ~ FLORIDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . ' . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 89 . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . COST OF SUPPL 1 , ES . OF . 19 TAMPA CI G AR . FACTORIES j . . 1930-1 ' 938 . . . ' . . , . .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . Year . . . Cost Pe~ M of Bo~es, . Cans, Laoels, and . ' . C . o . s t Per M . or Total Cost per M ' 1 1937 . 1 936 . 1935 1934 ' &nds . . . 13 e 64 g I , 3.81 . .. . . . 4.08 ' 3.85 ' 3. 0s . . Cellophai?-e . . . ,o~se .67 . . . .. .61 . . . ... . ' . . 1 1:~a ' g I . 4.69 4.55 4~66 ( 3.82 . .. . 1933 . 70 :so<~) . ... 75(1) . ( 1) . 81 . 4.57 . 4. 66 .' ' . . . 1932 : 1931 : . . . . 1930 . . 3.85 4.-33 4. 46 . . . . . ( . 1) . 1.02 ( ) ... .74 l . 5.35 5.20 SOURCE: Audit :repo _ rts and c _ ompany records of 19 Tampa elgar . factor~es, 1939. . . . ( 1) . 19 . 34-33 ( 18 Factories) , 1932 ( 17 Factori~s) , _ 1931 ( 16 . Fâ€¢ctories) . 1930 c 12 Factories) . . . . . . ' . . . . , . . . 'J.!:ABLE 90 ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . COST . OF 9~L o : l'HA,NING BY HAND AN~ }C H INE IN A TYPICAL TAKFA CI~AR FACTORY : .. 1930-1939 . . . ' Sche d ule or Cos:,; o f 9el lophan~n 6 b y Mach~ne per M Ci g ars . . . . . ' Year . Electricit:t Cellopha;ne . Labor . . J . . . 1939 ' t . l. .$ t. ~ . .-24 . .33 2 . . 1938 .34 .24 . . . . . . , . " i 193 7 . -34 . . . . 20 34 .20 1936 . . ' . : . 1 . . 1 9 35 .35 . .20 . 2 . . . . . . Avera g e cost 0. . cet~ ophaning by . machine . . . , ' . . . Schedule o f Cost of Cellopha~in g q yhand P~r M c 1gars . . . : I ' . . ' . Ye ar Tu b es La b or . . ' .. \ ' . . . Total $.58 58 . . 54 .55 ' . .55 t . . Total . 193 ' 4 . 1933 i932 1931 . ' . '$ : . 9 3 . . $.so . 1.43 1930 . . ' . ' 95 . . . : . . 50 . . . . 9~ . . . 50 . . . .11~ ... . so ,. . . .. ... .. . . . .135 â€¢,. 50 . ~verage coat . o f celloph~nin g by hand p ercenta g e _ re duction in cost by machine ' . . . . ' . soURCE : Records of a Tampa pla11t ., 19 30. 1939 . . . . .. . . ' . . ' . . . .. , . . . . . . . . I ; . . . . . . 1.45 .... 1.49 . 1.63 : . . . 1. 85 . .$ 1. 5 1 1 . . 64;. ]$' . . . . . . . . . . ' :I PAGE 174 . . . . . 'â€¢ . . . . . . . , . . . . . \ . . . . . . . APPENDIX . . . . . ' . . . . . . . .. . TABLE 91 . . :. . ......................... . , . . . . ' . 163 . . . COMPARISON OF THE COST OF MACHI . NE . A 1'ID . H A 1'TD CELLOPHANING . . . . . . . . . As FOUND IN A TYPICAL TAMPA F ACT O RY . . 1939 . . \ . . . Cost by Hand .. Co.st by Mach ine . . qellophane Used .$ n ep reciation of Mach _ ine Pow~r . La b or Total Cost . C igars d e l . lophened . . . . . . Avera g e -Oost per M . . . .. 401.09 $1,394.(58 844, 450 . .. . .$ 3 ' ,264.41 ' . . 428 .76 . 1 43.41 . . 1 1 346.78 $5 ,).83.3 ' 6 . . ,. I . . . . 6,340, 700 . . . . . . . . ' . . SOURCE : : . . . . . . . ' . Records of a Tampa plant, 193~. . . ' . TABLE 92 . EXPENDITURES .. FOR ADVERTISf:flG AND BAD DEBTS . SHOWN AS PERCENTA . l . . . SOURCE: Audit . reports ~nd . company r.eoords . _ of .. 14 Tampa ci , gar factories, . ;L.939~ . . ( 1) Computed for 13 companies. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 'â€¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . PAGE 175 . . . . . . . . . . â€¢. . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . TABLE93 . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' ESTIMATED COST OF FI_7 . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . ' . .. ' . . .. . . . . .. . . I . . . . . . 0 ,38~ ,ss s .. .. . ~ _ ,073.,36 6 ' . . .. _ . . . ~ : , 657 , 284 : 9,742,100 . ... 9 ,44o .~1e 9 ,2 . 44,968 . . . 8 ,212, 734 . . . . A~~r age ann11al . cost or ~mok:ers _ .$ _ 403 1 144.00 : . . ' . soURCE: . _ Revenue records of 19 T'1mpa oa11pani-ea, 1939. """-= : . . . ' . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . ... . .â€¢ .. . . . . . . . ' . . . " ) . . . .. . . (1) ActU:al f1gureil Or ci.Sa'.ra taken from the " tao~ on ~ the b& , a1'11 t~~per -le â€¢orker, per day 8._s takelll . , from the revenue records . . : . .. _--,.. . . . . . . . .. ' . . (2) An . estimated t1gure baaed . on _ ayer&ge o~ _ tbre~ ctgara ,. emokici 1.n the : factory pe 1â€¢ male . worker, per ~ . . . _. (3) :. Co,,;,1.1:~ed fra11 an estimated oost ot t.1v~ per cigar. : ' . . . . . ' . . . '. . .. ., ' . . . . . . . . . .. . I I . . â€¢. . ' I . . . . ... ... . , . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ~ ~ c:::, 1:-, . . . . .. . . .. .. . . ~ ea.., . ' . . . â€¢. ' .

PAGE 176

. . . ' I . . . . ,â€¢ . . . . ' . . . I . : APPENDIX 165 . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . ' .. . . . . . .. ' . . TABLE 94 . . . . ' . NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES \ . . IN 19 TAM PA FACTORIES . 1 926-1939 . ' . . . : ' . . . . . . . . . : . Index Cl . ) . year Nilinber of Ein p loyees ' I 6,691 . 193 9 g e . g . ' . ' 193 8 6,508 ' 8 7 . 7 . ' . 1937 5,268 . 83.8 . . . . . 1936 5j443 8 6 _ .6 ' .. . ' . . . ' 1935 5.,460 8 6.-9 . . . .. . . 1934 5 , _ 6 04 8 9.2 . . . . 1933 . 6, 1 . 33 .. 9 7.6 I , . . ' . . . . 1932 6 . ,5 . 23 103. 8 . ' . . . . . 1931 ' s , 947 I 110.6 . . . . . . 1930 6,970 110.9 ' . . , . . 1929 . 7 ,222 . 114.9 . . .. .... .. . ' . 1928 . . 7,000 . . 112.7 \ . .. . . 107.5 ' . 1927 6,753 . . 1926 q,283 100.0 . . . . ' . . . SOURCE: Sta1;einents :from . . . . . (1) Base for this index: . . . . ' . . . 19 . Tampa ._ f~ ct or 1es; 1926 . . TA B LE 95 100. ' ' ' .. July 1939. .. DISTRI . BUTION ' OF EMPLOYi:ES E Y ~ DEPARTMENT AND SEX IN 19 . TAMPA GIGAR FACTORIES . . . . ' . . D epar t me nt '. 1939 ., Total Men . . . .â€¢ . . . Employees ~ercenta g e . Wo m en of M en in . . : _ Ea . ch De. . . . . . ' .. . . . C 1ga.1-makj.tlg Stripping . Packing . . B anding S electing C le;rks .. C ellophanin g r{ elpera o ffice s h ip _ ping .. F o _ remen _ . . . .. . . T otal Einpl9yees . . â€¢. . . , 4,366 . 2,180 646 . . 3 325 309 . . . : 180 7 .. 172 158 125 121 75 . 7 . 63 . 6.3 55 33 46 41 . 38 38 6 , 09~ . 2, 9 60 _ . . . partment I . . s o . % . 5 95. ' 4. 92. 97. . 9 100. 60. 89~ 100 . , . 49. . ' 2 , 1 ~ 6 . 643 16 173 14 .. 4 68 0 22 ' 5 ' 0 ... Percenta g e of W . omen i n Each Department . . . .. -----~---. . 50. .. 99. 5 5. 96. . a. 3. . 91. O. 40. , 11 . o. 5 1. .. . so~cE : . Statements o~ 19 Tampa ci g ar factories, Ju l y 1 93 9 ~ . . . . . ' . . . .. . . . . . . . . I ' . .

PAGE 177

, ' ' " . . \ ,' '' . . I . . . . ' ! ... . . . . . . . _. I ' . . I â€¢. . . . . . . . . \ . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' : . . THE : tiGAR INDUSTRY OF TAMPA, PLORID . A ( . . .. r ,. . . ' ' . ' . . .. ' . I . . . ' . . " TABLE 96 . . .. e, . . . . . . . . I . . -.. . . . AVERAGE . WEEatX!Y WAGE AND 11 ou . Rt;v EARNINGS OF CIG . . . . . 19 TAMPA .' FACTORIB:S . ' . . ' ; . . . . ' ' I . . . ' . . For S~mp1e . Weeks Prom Bach . Month .. . . ~ly ; . . 19~â€¢.T11ne, 1939 . _. . . .-. .' . . ' . . . . .. . , . . . .. . . ' . ' . ,' . . . . ' ' . ' Month .. ' . . . . . . . . Av~~ag~ -~ekiY â€¢!!se ... Average Hourly l'arnlhga . (2 i . July, 1938 Aygust . S~pte]llbe~ October November I . December . . . . .. J$.uary, 1939 . February March .. April . . . . ~y . ' ', June .. . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . t 41 : .$i " 4.75 .,. ::: 14~57 , ', . 40 '. . ,. . . 14. 1a .. . 1s .2s : i4. 7 1 , . . ' 13.28 . , , 13.1.;5 :, . 12.36 12. 76 . . . . ' . ].3 . 01 . 13. 64 . ' 13.79 . . . ' . ' 1 . ' . . . . 39 . . . . ' . . . : . . . 42 : .41 .37 . 36 . .34 :, _-55 . . . . 36 . . 38 . . . . 38 . ., . . . . ; . Weighted Average ( 1) . . . t. ' ' . . ' ., . . . SOURCE~ . P~yr.0 11 . data :f:r 1 om 19 ~a11,pa . pla nts, 1939 . . . . . (1) . Computed from to . tal : workers and ~ages, 12 . Bample weelal. (-2) Hou:rly wage . computed on ~asis of 36 . hour . week. . . . ' ' . ' . . ' . . ' . . ' . TABLE 97 . . .. . . ' ' . THE WAGE SCAT~ F~ '"""THE9'r.ll . SPA.NISH HAND SYSTEM . .. EFFEC ' TIVE . IN THE TAMPA FACTORl '. ES 1 :. . . . 1934 AND 1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . .. . . . . ( . Sill.LE , LIST . ;irROII . . THE CARTABON) . . . .. . . Front Marks S . ize . 1934 . 1939 . . . ' \ . . . ' . ' . : . . Pi,ic e . pet1 _ , 000 ,~ice pe r 1,000 : . cigars . For Cigar. Cigars For Cigar. . maker . . . maker . . . . . . . . Del.iciosas . Panete . las Inv1n . 61bles Exce . pcional . es . -. . . . I ' 4 3/ 4" . .. ..... ,2a. 50 . 5 . ,â€¢ 27 50 . 5 . 3/4 .. 48.qo . .. . . $29~50 . 28. 50 49.50 38.60 .. . 23.00 . . B ock Panet ela 5 1/8 . . .. 36. 50 4 7/8 . . -' . 22 .oo 4 1/2 . . 26.50 . 27.50 .. .. 41. 00 . Conchas . ' Perfecto , .. Perfecto Grande 5 1/ 16 . 39.00 5 1/ 4 . . .. 4 1. 5() . . . 43 .oo . . . Puritanos . Londre s C or . rien t~ . . 4 l 16 -. 25. 50 4 3 4 . . . . 22. oo . . . 26.50 . 23 .oo ... 24.50 Lend.res Grande . . . . Ch~~oots . 4 15 : 16 .. . . 23.50 .. . ' 4 1 4 10.QO 10. 25 . . . ' . . . . SOURCE . : Carta q on , effecttve September 1934. Data on 1937 wa g e i ncrease furnished . by Mr. Franc1~ , Sack, . Secreta~y o:f . Ci g ar Manufact rers ' . Assoc iat~on. . . ' . . . . : .. ' . . . . . . . .. I . . ' . . .. . . . ' . ' . . . . . . ' . ' 0 I i .. . . . . . I . . . . PAGE 178 .. , \ .. . ' . . .. APPENDIX .: . ' . . . TABLE 98 .. ... . . . ' . . . AVERA G E WEEKLY WAGES OP WORKERS EN G A G ED IN DIFFERE N T CI . GARMAlaN t 1 PROCESSES AND . OBERATIONS . . 19 TAMPA FACTORIES . . . . . I . . . . . Sample we eks 1n a . a.ch 100nth . . _ Ju~y, 1 9 ;38-Jurie, 1 . 939 . . CigtArmakers (Average) .. Spanis h Hand Workers ., Hand Mold Workers . . . compe . titive . ~rocess Worker, . Ma ch irie . !'E unched, Hand~Rolleq Workers A ut oma tic Machine . Workers .. . â€¢, . ~ trippers . S electora . . . . . . Packers . ,:. ... .. . Bandera !., . . . SOURCE: F 1 a 0i7 prod:tiction an4 payroll . . . T . factories, . 1939. . TABLE 99 . . .. . .$ . 13. 8 6 . 13.63 14. 62 13.71 . 12.58 16. 8 2 9.06 22-.90 ' 24.66 11.07 . re . cords, 19 . . 16'7 . . ' . . . . . P ERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF c 10ARMAKERS AN . D CIGARS BY . PR ' OCiSSES IN . . . 19 FACTORIES . 'l'AnA, FLORipA ., .' \ ' . 1938-i939 : . . . . . ' . . . Proces ses . . .. â€¢, ' , . . ~panish Hand Proces . s . Mold Proc es s . . , . fe'centa g e . . . Perc e~ta g e Pistri b ution Distribution o . :r Workers . or c :tgars Made $l [ . 22. 7 '1, ._. -. 12 . 1 '1, . . . ' 48 8 . . . : 38 7 .5 . .5 . . Mac h ine-Bun~hed, . Hand . -Rolled . . 27.l 4;J.~ ~ C ompetitive System . )ia chine . 9 7 l . . . . . . . 100 ;o % . 100 o % .. . . . ' . SOURCE: Payrol:l ~ate. from 19 Tenipa plants, 1 9 39 . , Based on <;ls.ta from 1~ T&JJJP~ . plants includi ng . 12 sample weeks . ~uly, 1938 _ t o June 1939 . . .. ' , . ' ' â€¢, ' ' . . . TABLE 100 . LA B OR COST PERM CIGARS , . OF DIFFERENT C , IGARMAKIN ~ PROOESS:ES AND . OPERATIONS 19 . TAMPA . CIGAR F ACTORIES . . . . . . Sample weeks 1:h . eac h ri onth . . J~ly, 1938 _ June 19 ~ 9 . . . . . Ciga~1â€¢-kitlg . (Ave1'age). Spanish Hand Proce . ss _ Hand Mold ~rocess ' . . ' . Competi ti v~ hocess . Machi . ne-Bunched, Hand-Rolled . Automatic . Kachin~ . . . ~tripping . . Sele~ting packing Bar1ding . ' . . .. . ' . . I . . . . .$13.5 . 0 24.89 17. 9 4 15.23 '7.99 2~04 1.34 ~75 1~69 .ss . . . . SOURCE: . Factory pro~uotion a nd pa~o11 records, 19 Tampa factories, 1939. . ' . ' . . . . . . .,

PAGE 179

. . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. , . . . . . . . Sample Weeks 'â€¢ . . ' ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' ' . . .. . . . . ' â€¢' . ' . . . ' " TABLE ' 101 . . ' . . . . . . . .. . . ' . . . . . . . . . . .. . -$. . . . . ' . . PRODUCT . IVITY o F CIGARMAKERS IN AVERAGE . CIGARS . ~R WOBt PAGE 180 . . .. . . " . . . . . . . . ' TABLE 102 . . . . . . . . . AVERAGE NU1-ffiE:R OF CIGARS MANUFAC'1 1 URH:t> AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR CIGAR. . MAKERS AND O . THS:R FACTORY . ~BOR ' pER HOUR, PER e-HOUR DAY, ANJ? PER _ 40 -HOUR WEEK .. BY THE SP~NISH HAND _ ME'l'HOD, !.ND MOLD METHOD, AND MACHINE;.BlJNCHED, .. HAND-ROIJ,ET) METHOD IN SET,EnTED TAMPA FACTORIES , . . : SAMPLE " WEEKS . , ' 1938-1939 . . . . . . . .. I . . . . . . . . . Ciga rs )fanufactured Per Hour . .. . . CigarnJSlcers By Methods: ... spanish Hand Me . thod 13.35 20.44 Hand Mold . Method Machine-Bt ched, . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cigars Manufactured . Per 8~Hour . Da:y; 106.8 163.5 Cigars . Manufactured . . . Per 40-Hour Week .. . 534.0 . . 817 . 6 Wages . Per Hour . -$ 0.360 .417 .. ~ages Per . 8-Hour . . Day $2.88 3.34 : . . . . Hand-Ro lled Method 42.58 . . . 340. 6 . 1,703.2 .348 2.78 . . . Other Factory Packers Se1ectors B anders .' Strippers I Labor ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . 661 .577 . 381 .28 . 4 . SOURCE: . . Company payroll .. records of selected Tan1pa cigar f actories, . 19~9. . . . . . . . . 5.29 .. 4. 62 3 .05 2.27 , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Wages Per 40.-Hour . . Week .$ 14.40 16 . 68 . 13 92 26.45 23.10 15.25 11'.35 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .